Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Maclin v. Greens Nursing & Assisted Living, L.L.C.
,
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101085
LISA MACLIN, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BERTHA L. THOMAS, DECD.
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs.
GREENS NURSING AND ASSISTED LIVING, L.L.C., ET
AL.
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-13-801107
BEFORE: Keough, J., Celebrezze, P.J., and Kilbane, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 12, 2014 *2 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
Paul W. McCartney
Jessica C. Pratt
Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis, L.L.P.
600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
LISA MACLIN
Richard V. Zurz
Martin S. Delahunty, III
Slater & Zurz, L.L.C.
One Cascade Plaza
Suite 2210
Akron, Ohio 44308
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND MEDICAL CENTER Ernest W. Auciello
Jane F. Warner
Tucker Ellis, L.L.P.
950 Main Avenue
Suite 1100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:
{¶1}
This appeal is before the court on the accelerated docket pursuant to App.R.
11.1 and Loc. App.R. 11.1. The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to
render a brief and conclusory opinion.
State v. Priest
, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100614,
{¶2} Defendants-appellants, the Greens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Greens Nursing and Assisted Living, L.L.C., and Kindred Nursing Centers East, L.L.C. (“the Greens defendants”), appeal from the trial court’s judgment granting in part and denying in part their motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The Greens defendants contend that the trial court erred in not staying all claims pending arbitration. Plaintiff-appellee, Lisa Maclin, concedes the trial court’s error. We reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court enter an order staying all proceedings until the parties’ arbitrable claims have been resolved.
I. Background Bertha L. Thomas was a resident at the Greens Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center from November 8, 2011 through January 20, 2012, when she was transported to the hospital, where she died a few days later. In February 2012, Maclin, as administratrix of Thomas’s estate, filed suit against the Greens defendants asserting survivorship and wrongful death claims relating to Thomas’s treatment while she was in the care of the Greens defendants and her subsequent death. The Greens defendants filed answers to Maclin’s complaint and subsequent
amended complaint, and in both answers, asserted as an affirmative defense that Maclin’s claims are subject to a binding arbitration agreement signed by Thomas’s legal representative on November 8, 2011. The Greens defendants subsequently moved to stay all proceedings pending arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement and R.C. 2711.02.
{¶5} The trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, it stayed the proceedings regarding the survivorship claims but denied the motion as to the wrongful death claims, finding that those claims were not subject to arbitration. This appeal followed.
II. Analysis
{¶6} In their only assignment of error, the Greens defendants assert that the trial court erred in not staying all claims, both arbitrable and non-arbitrable, until the claims subject to arbitration under the parties’ arbitration agreement have been resolved through arbitration. Generally, absent an abuse of discretion, a reviewing court should not
disturb a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration.
K.M.P., Inc. v. Ohio Historical Soc.
, 4th Dist. Jackson No. 03CA2,
settle disputes.
Marquez v. Koch
, 4th Dist. Ross No. 11CA3283,
[i]f any action is brought upon any issue referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, the court in which the action is pending, upon being satisfied that the issue involved in the action is referable to arbitration under an agreement in writing for arbitration, shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until the arbitration of the issue has been had in accordance with the agreement, provided the applicant for the stay is not in default in proceeding with arbitration.
{¶9}
As is apparent from the language of the statute, when a trial court determines
that certain claims are subject to arbitration, it must stay the entire proceeding until those
claims have been arbitrated, even though the action may involve both arbitrable and
non-arbitrable claims.
Cheney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
, 10th Dist. Franklin No.
04AP-1354,
all proceedings pending resolution by arbitration of the survivorship claims.
{¶12} The judgment is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order staying all proceedings until the arbitrable claims have been resolved.
It is ordered that the parties share equally the costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE
FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., P.J., and
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., CONCUR
KEY WORDS:
# 101085
Arbitration; stay; survivorship claims; wrongful death claims; arbitrable; non-arbitrable. Trial court erred in not staying all proceedings pending arbitration; because the survivorship claims were subject to arbitration, the trial court should have stayed all proceedings until those claims were resolved, even though the wrongful death claims were not subject to arbitration.