The ESTATE OF JOSEFA U. DeCAMACHO v. LA SOLANA CARE AND REHAB, INC.
234 Ariz. 18
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Guthrie, as personal representative of the Estate of Josefa DeCamacho, sued La Solana for APSA and wrongful death claims.
- La Solana admitted DeCamacho to its facility under an admission agreement containing an arbitration clause.
- Guthrie signed the agreement on DeCamacho’s behalf; spaces in the agreement were not filled in at signing.
- DeCamacho resided at La Solana from 2007 to July 23, 2010, when she was injured and later died.
- The trial court stayed the case pending arbitration and Guthrie sought appellate review, which this court granted in part and denied in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the admission agreement is a valid contract to arbitrate | Guthrie argues the contract lacks valid formation/acceptance. | La Solana argues the agreement is valid and creates arbitration binding on the parties. | Contract valid; arbitration clause enforceable for APSA claims. |
| Scope of arbitration clause—whether it binds APSA and related claims | APSA and related claims fall within the clause if derivative of DeCamacho's rights. | Clause binds only DeCamacho’s rights; third parties not bound. | APSA claim derivative to DeCamacho subject to arbitration; wrongful death not bound. |
| Whether the wrongful death claims are subject to arbitration | Wrongful death claims should be arbitrable as they arise from the decedent’s rights. | Wrongful death claims are not arbitrable under the contract. | Wrongful death claims not subject to arbitration; reversal of that portion. |
| Whether statutory beneficiaries are bound as third-party beneficiaries | Beneficiaries may be bound if benefits flow under contract. | Beneficiaries do not bind to contract if they did not accept terms. | Statutory beneficiaries are not bound by the arbitration clause for wrongful death; APSA derivative claim binds. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Bank of Ariz. v. Schwartz, 230 Ariz. 310 (Ariz. 2012) (review of arbitration are de novo for legal principles; defer factual findings)
- Schoneberger v. Oelze, 208 Ariz. 591 (Ariz. 2004) (arbitration clause enforceability; agency principles in contract)
- Broemmer v. Abortion Servs. of Phoenix, Ltd., 173 Ariz. 148 (Ariz. 1992) (arbitration prerequisite; contract law governs arbitration)
- S. Cal. Edison Co. v. Peabody Western Coal Co., 194 Ariz. 47 (Ariz. 1999) (contractual arbitration authority; federal/state law interplay)
- Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, - (Ariz. App. 2009) (contract interpretation governs arbitration scope)
- Woodall v. Avalon Care Ctr.- Fed. Way, LLC, 231 P.3d 1252 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (distinction between wrongful death and survival claims in arbitration)