Walton v. Johnson
66 A.3d 782
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Kindred appeals a Philadelphia court order overruling its preliminary objections to compel arbitration with Walton based on an ADR Agreement.
- Walton was comatose upon admission; her mother Nancy signed the ADR Agreement as Walton's 'Legal Representative' along with other medical consent forms.
- Walton did not have power of attorney or a court-appointed guardian; Walton never signed or read the ADR Agreement herself.
- Kindred presented evidence that Joanne Baker signed the original admission documents as best friend/sister, then Nancy signed additional forms about two weeks later.
- The ADR Agreement states that needed medical services are not conditioned upon signature, and Walton was unaware of the waiver of jury trial during her stay.
- The trial court certified its Rule 1925(a) Opinion adopting the factual background and ultimately denied Kindred’s preliminary objections; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the ADR Agreement enforceable against Walton? | Kindred arguesGENCY by Nancy binds Walton. | Kindred contends Nancy had authority or estoppel. | No enforceable agency established; ADR not enforceable. |
| Did Nancy Walton have actual or apparent authority to sign for Walton? | Agency existed by express/implied/estoppel authority. | No written authorization; no express/app apparent authority shown. | No actual or apparent authority proven. |
| Does agency by estoppel apply to create authority to sign the ADR Agreement? | Walton ratified her mother's agency by consenting to medical treatment. | Ratification does not apply to arbitration waiver; requires knowledge of waiver. | Agency by estoppel not proven regarding the ADR Agreement. |
| Was Walton's knowledge or notice of the waiver required for estoppel to apply? | Walton assumed family would decide medical procedures; ratification implied. | No evidence Walton knew of waiver; no steps by Mama to disavow. | Lacked knowledge of waiver; estoppel not established. |
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying preliminary objections to compel arbitration? | Agency issues supported enforceability. | No agency and no waiver; should compel arbitration if valid. | No abuse of discretion; order affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turnway Corp. v. Soffer, 336 A.2d 871 (Pa. 1975) (agency by estoppel requires principal's conduct and justifiable reliance)
- Sidle v. Kaufman, 29 A.2d 77 (Pa. 1942) (agency relationship not inferred from family ties alone)
- Gaffer Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Discover Reinsurance Co., 936 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing arbitration-denial rulings)
- Commonwealth v. Maker, 716 A.2d 619 (Pa. Super. 1998) (agency may be inferred from facts; no need for formalities)
- Turnway Corp. v. Soffer, 336 A.2d 871 (Pa. 1975) (reiterates estoppel principles in agency analysis)