Wisler v. Manor Care of Lancaster PA, LLC
124 A.3d 317
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Decedent, Herbert C. Wisler, resided at ManorCare Lancaster during two stays in 2010; his son H. Randall Wisler signed admissions and arbitration forms while claiming to hold Decedent’s power of attorney.
- Executors (H. Randall and H. Keith Wisler) later sued ManorCare under the Survival Act for professional negligence arising from Decedent’s care, alleging injuries including falls, malnutrition, infections, and pain.
- ManorCare filed preliminary objections seeking to compel arbitration under pre-dispute arbitration agreements H. Randall signed on Decedent’s behalf.
- At the arbitration dispute phase, Executors did not produce the written power of attorney; ManorCare argued that absence warranted an adverse inference and that H. Randall had authority to bind Decedent.
- Trial court refused to compel arbitration, finding H. Randall lacked authority (express, apparent, or estoppel) to waive Decedent’s jury/trial rights; ManorCare appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid agency/power of attorney authorized H. Randall to sign arbitration agreements for Decedent | Wisler (Executors) argued no actual/express authority to waive litigation rights—no POA produced and no evidence Decedent authorized arbitration | ManorCare argued H. Randall held power of attorney and thus had authority to sign admissions and arbitration forms | Court held ManorCare failed to prove express authority; absence of POA meant ManorCare bore the risk of relying on agent’s statements |
| Whether apparent authority existed | Wisler: no manifestations by Decedent to ManorCare creating belief his son could bind him | ManorCare: son’s statements, prior acts (banking, hospital admissions) and deposition admissions show apparent authority | Court held no evidence of principal’s manifestations; apparent authority not established |
| Whether authority by estoppel (or ratification) applies | Wisler: Decedent did not act or ratify; no evidence he knew or authorized arbitration | ManorCare: Decedent’s silence and lack of produced POA should permit estoppel or adverse inference | Court held no estoppel—no evidence Decedent knew or acquiesced; adverse inference is permissive and cannot substitute for proof |
| Whether court should draw adverse/mandatory inference from Executors’ failure to produce POA | Wisler: failure to produce POA not controlling; burden remains on ManorCare to prove agency | ManorCare: absence of POA permits an unfavorable inference that POA granted authority to sign arbitration | Court held any adverse inference is permissive only and does not supply the proof ManorCare needed; trial court did not err in declining arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Johnson, 66 A.3d 782 (Pa. Super. 2013) (two-part test for compelling arbitration and agency principles)
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (arbitrability review framework)
- Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 761 A.2d 1115 (Pa. 2000) (definition and creation of agency and express authority)
- Fierst v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 451 A.2d 674 (Pa. 1982) (duty of third parties to inquire into written limits of an agent’s authority)
- Kennett Square Specialties v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd. (Cruz), 31 A.3d 325 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (adverse inference does not constitute substantive evidence)
- V‑Tech Servs., Inc. v. Street, 72 A.3d 270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (agent cannot self-create apparent authority)