HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania was due to hear arguments this week centered on a care facility ownership group’s desire to arbitrate an action between itself and the estate of a deceased former resident.
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Joseph A. Smyth Jr. characterized the action in a June 13 opinion, prior to the case being sent to the Superior Court.
“This is an action by the personal representative of a former resident of a nursing home, now deceased, against the facility’s owners and operators. Defendants in this litigation are seeking damages for personal and other injuries allegedly suffered as a result of her residence there," Smyth wrote.
"Certain of the owners/operators have appealed to the Superior Court from this lower court’s order overruling their preliminary objections raising, under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(6), in the form of an alleged pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate claims arising out of the resident’s stay at the facility."
Plaintiff Linda L. Killian claims that due to the defendants’ negligence, Adrienne Marie Killian-Moseley, suffered “preventable injuries, including falls, a head injury and concussion, right foot osteomyelitis, right foot MRSA infections, MRSA wound infections, several urinary tract infections, poor hygiene, severe pain and ultimately, death.
Killian sued a number of corporate entities for their alleged liability in this case.
“The decedent lived at the facility, Golden Living Center – Lansdale, later called Lansdale Care and Rehabilitation Center, from May 2015 to July 1, 2017. During her residency at the facility, it changed hands among various defendant, consequently the change in names, on or about Feb. 1, 2017.
The case concerned three groups of defendants: the “Golden Living Defendants” who were the former owners/operators of the home as of the time the decedent first entered it; the “Fillmore Defendants” who have companies headquartered outside Pennsylvania that are alleged to have had a role in the facility’s operation while the first group owned it; and finally, the “Skyline Defendants” who took over ownership and operation of the facility in February 2017, when the prior owners transferred their interests over to them.
Killian filed an initial suit in the case in December 2017 and each group of defendants filed preliminary objections to it, leading to an amended version of the complaint and another round of preliminary objections.
“At this point, the Golden Living Defendants stipulated with plaintiff to arbitrate their disputes pursuant to an arbitration agreement between the decedent and ‘Golden Living Center’ dating from at or near the time the decedent entered the facility in May 2015; this stipulation was approved and filed as an order of the Court. In accordance with Pennsylvania’s Uniform Arbitration Act, the stipulation and order stayed plaintiff’s claims in Court against the Golden Living Defendants pending completion of the arbitration,” Smyth said.
Though the trial court overruled preliminary objections from both the Fillmore and Skyline defendants, the latter filed an appeal to the Superior Court.
The sole issue to be brought to the Superior Court is whether the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas properly overruled the Skyline Defendants’ preliminary objections to arbitrate Killian’s claims based on the Golden Living Center arbitration agreement.
The trial court feels it did not err in the instant matter.
“The Skyline Defendants failed to establish to this Court that it should compel plaintiff to arbitrate her claim against them, which was their burden to do,” Smyth said.
Smyth stated that in attempting to satisfy the burden to compel arbitration, the Skyline Defendants relied exclusively on the arbitration agreement plaintiff’s decedent Killian-Moseley made with Golden Living Center when she entered the facility in May 2015, despite the fact that the Skyline Defendants had no interest in or rights to the facility until February 2017.
Smyth called this evidence “insufficient factual or legal justification to require the Court to enforce the Golden Living agreement against plaintiff on the Skyline Defendants’ behalf,” especially as the agreement does not mention corporate successors in interest to the facility.
“The Skyline Defendants’ preliminary objections cite no specific provision of the Golden Living Center arbitration contract, or any contract the Skyline Defendants had with the Golden Living Defendants or any other party, giving the Skyline Defendants a right to compel arbitration under the May 2015 Golden Living Center arbitration agreement,” Smyth said.
“Of course, a corollary of the principle that a dispute cannot be compelled to arbitration unless the parties have agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration is that they must be parties to the arbitration agreement itself.”
In trying to compel arbitration with the plaintiff, Smyth stated the Skyline Defendants did not provide any evidence of their becoming the successor to the Golden Living Center and its rights and liabilities, and only the plaintiff’s response broached that topic.
Smyth added the Skyline Defendants’ preliminary objections did not touch these subjects, but only reiterated the legal conclusion that all contracts previously signed by Killian-Moseley relating to her residency were still in effect.
“The Skyline Defendants’ preliminary objections did not anticipate and address these contract law-based arguments, but the Court found no need to reach them since the Skyline Defendants failed to establish entitlement to invoke the Golden Living Center arbitration agreement in the first place,” Smyth said.
“The Skyline Defendants simply failed to show entitlement to enforce an arbitration agreement entered into by another party, and hence to carry their burden under both state and federal law.”
Smyth added he felt the Superior Court should uphold the trial court ruling.
“This Court respectfully suggests it neither erred legally not abused its discretion in overruling the Skyline Defendants’ preliminary objections seeking to take advantage of the Golden Living Center arbitration agreement with plaintiff’s decedent. The Court respectfully suggests that the honorable Superior Court should therefore affirm the order on appeal.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 3584 EDA 2018
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com