United Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Norton
300 Ga. 736
Ga.2017Background
- Lola Norton resided at PruittHealth-Toccoa from April 25, 2013 until her death on April 18, 2014; Kim Norton, as Lola’s attorney-in-fact, signed an admission agreement at intake.
- The admission agreement included a broad arbitration clause covering claims arising from the resident’s stay, expressly naming wrongful death beneficiaries (spouse, children, heirs, survivors) as parties bound and benefitted.
- After Lola’s death, Bernard Norton (by and through Kim Norton) filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligent treatment caused Lola’s death.
- Defendants moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay and compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; the trial court granted the motion and compelled arbitration.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding beneficiaries need not arbitrate; the Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the arbitration agreement binds the decedent’s wrongful death beneficiaries.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a decedent’s arbitration agreement (signed at admission/through agent) binds wrongful death beneficiaries | Beneficiaries (Norton) are not bound by decedent’s arbitration agreement; wrongful death plaintiffs are separate and cannot be compelled to arbitrate | Wrongful death claims are derivative of decedent’s claims; defenses binding the decedent (including arbitration) bind beneficiaries | Agreement binding; beneficiaries must arbitrate wrongful death claims |
| Whether an arbitration agreement signed by an attorney-in-fact or personal representative can bind beneficiaries | POA/administrator cannot waive or bind beneficiaries’ statutory wrongful death claims | Decedent (through agent/personal representative) executed agreement that applies to wrongful death beneficiaries; derivative doctrine applies | Valid; arbitration enforceable when signed by patient or her authorized agent/personal representative |
| Whether ‘‘procedural vs. substantive’’ defense distinction prevents enforcement of arbitration against beneficiaries | Arbitration is a procedural defense and thus would not bind beneficiaries | Arbitration is an affirmative defense that would have applied to the decedent and therefore applies to beneficiaries | Court rejected the procedural/substantive distinction as unsupported and unnecessary; arbitration enforceable |
| Whether precedent permits non-signatory beneficiaries to be bound to arbitration | Beneficiaries are not parties so cannot be bound | Precedent recognizes releases/waivers by decedents bind beneficiaries in derivative actions; arbitration is analogous | Court held longstanding derivative doctrine controls; beneficiaries can be bound |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cassin, 111 Ga. 575 (1900) (settlement by decedent bars beneficiaries’ wrongful death action)
- Spradlin v. Georgia R. & Elec. Co., 139 Ga. 575 (1913) (decedent’s acts that bar his action operate equally against beneficiaries)
- Currid v. DeKalb State Court Probation Dept., 285 Ga. 184 (2009) (waiver by decedent binds wrongful death beneficiaries)
- Turner v. Walker County, 200 Ga. App. 565 (1991) (defenses good against decedent are good against beneficiaries)
- Ghertner v. Solaimani, 254 Ga. App. 821 (2002) (duty to arbitrate recognized as affirmative defense)
- Lankford v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 266 Ga. App. 228 (2004) (non-signatory spouse required to arbitrate derivative loss-of-consortium claim)
- Norton v. United Health Svcs. of Ga., Inc., 336 Ga. App. 51 (2016) (Court of Appeals decision holding beneficiaries not bound; reversed on certiorari)