371 P.3d 1170
Okla. Civ. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Brenda Weaver, as attorney-in-fact for Virginia Weaver, sued Forest Hills Care & Rehabilitation Center for caretaker neglect arising from Virginia's stays at the facility.
- Forest Hills moved to dismiss or, alternatively, to compel arbitration, relying on two signed Oklahoma Long-Term Care Arbitration Agreements (one signed Feb. 2012, one Oct. 2012).
- The Agreements (1) broadly delegated disputes arising from the resident's stay to binding arbitration, (2) expressly stated the FAA applies and preempts inconsistent state law, and (3) permitted a 30-day rescission.
- The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration; Forest Hills appealed and obtained a stay pending appeal.
- Plaintiff relied on Oklahoma's Nursing Home Care Act §1-1939 and Bruner v. Timberlane (2006) to argue predispute nursing-home arbitration clauses are unenforceable; defendant relied on Marmet (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012) and the Agreements' FAA choice to argue preemption and enforceability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA preempts Oklahoma's Nursing Home Care Act §1-1939 and makes the predispute nursing-home arbitration agreement enforceable | Bruner controls; §1-1939 nullifies waivers of the right to sue and right to jury trial for nursing-home claims, so arbitration is unenforceable | Marmet requires that state laws categorically prohibiting arbitration of nursing-home personal-injury claims are preempted by the FAA; Agreement also expressly invoked the FAA | The FAA preempts §1-1939 under Marmet; Bruner's contrary holding cannot be applied here |
| Whether the parties agreed FAA applies and thus federal law governs enforceability | Plaintiff contended Bruner/state law governs regardless | Defendant pointed to Agreement provisions stipulating FAA applies and interstate-commerce language | Agreement expressly designated FAA; court treated FAA as applicable |
| Whether challenges to the Agreement's unconscionability must be decided by the court or an arbitrator | Brenda argued the Agreement is overreaching and unconscionable, so court should refuse enforcement | Forest Hills argued delegation and validity issues belong to the arbitrator per the Agreement and Rent-A-Center precedent | Because plaintiff challenged the validity of the arbitration agreement as a whole, Rent-A-Center requires the arbitrator, not the court, determine unconscionability |
| Remedy: whether trial court erred in denying motion to compel arbitration | Plaintiff maintained denial was proper under state law and public policy protecting residents | Defendant argued denial conflicted with Marmet and FAA; reversal required | Court reversed trial court and directed entry of an order compelling arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (U.S. 2012) (FAA preempts state laws that categorically prohibit predispute arbitration of nursing-home personal-injury/wrongful-death claims)
- Bruner v. Timberlane Manor Ltd. P'ship, 155 P.3d 16 (Okla. 2006) (held Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act barred enforcement of nursing-home arbitration clauses)
- Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2010) (when validity of the entire arbitration agreement is challenged, arbitrator decides; only challenges to delegation clause itself are for courts)
- Thompson v. Bar-S Foods Co., 174 P.3d 567 (Okla. 2007) (standard of review for orders granting/denying motions to compel arbitration)