2019 Ohio 595
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Decedent Glenna Zellner, with dementia and Parkinson’s, was admitted to Prestige Gardens on April 18, 2017; she fell, suffered a hip fracture, underwent surgery, was placed on hospice, and died May 8, 2017.
- Glenna’s husband (Jack) signed an admissions packet including a three‑page standalone “Attachment D” arbitration agreement on Glenna’s behalf as her power of attorney.
- Personal representative Bethany Zellner sued the facility and multiple individual and corporate defendants (medical negligence, wrongful death, ordinary negligence, Nursing Home Residents’ Bill of Rights violations) on April 9, 2018.
- Defendants moved to stay proceedings pending arbitration under R.C. 2711.02; the trial court granted the stay on July 3, 2018. Zellner appealed.
- On appeal, Zellner argued (1) the arbitration agreement was unconscionable and noncompliant with R.C. 2711.23, (2) defendants waived arbitration by litigation conduct, (3) wrongful‑death claims and some defendants were not subject to arbitration, and (4) the court denied adequate discovery/opportunity to respond.
- The Third District affirmed the stay: it found the arbitration agreement not substantively unconscionable, no waiver by defendants, and that a stay of the entire action was proper because at least one claim was arbitrable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the arbitration agreement unconscionable and unenforceable? | Zellner: procedurally and substantively unconscionable (contract of adhesion; fee allocation; lack of specific rules); fails R.C. 2711.23. | Defendants: agreement is standalone, voluntary, cancelable within 30 days, follows AAA rules; cost allocation is not a categorical “loser‑pays.” | Agreement not shown substantively unconscionable; plaintiff failed to prove prohibitive arbitration costs; stay appropriate. |
| Must the court stay the entire case when some claims (e.g., wrongful death) may be non‑arbitrable? | Zellner: wrongful‑death beneficiaries did not sign and cannot be forced to arbitrate. | Defendants: at least one claim (ordinary negligence) falls within the broad arbitration agreement; R.C. 2711.02 requires staying the action if any claim is arbitrable. | Stay of entire proceeding proper even if some claims (wrongful death) are non‑arbitrable. |
| Did defendants waive their right to arbitration by litigation conduct? | Zellner: defendants demanded jury, propounded discovery, delayed moving to stay. | Defendants: limited, quickly withdrawn discovery; motion to stay filed within two months; they preserved arbitration in their answer. | No waiver: totality of circumstances did not show inconsistent conduct or prejudice. |
| Was the trial court required to permit additional discovery or give extra notice before staying? | Zellner: needed discovery to challenge validity/unconscionability and lacked notice of impending ruling. | Defendants: record contained the agreement and briefing; most issues could be decided on existing record; extra discovery would not alter substantive‑unconscionability outcome. | No abuse of discretion: court was adequately briefed; additional discovery would not have changed result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (holding on standard for abuse of discretion)
- Kelm v. Kelm, 68 Ohio St.3d 26 (discussing policy favoring arbitration)
- Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (arbitration policy and enforceability principles)
- Hayes v. Oakridge Home, 122 Ohio St.3d 63 (unconscionability standard for arbitration agreements)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (contract‑revocation grounds applicable to arbitration agreements)
- Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., 115 Ohio St.3d 134 (wrongful‑death claims are distinct and beneficiaries cannot be compelled by decedent’s predeath arbitration agreement)