SA-PG-OCALA, LLC, AS LICENSEE, ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY FRANCES STOKES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A nursing home patient challenged an arbitration agreement that substantially limited her remedies under Florida's Nursing Home Residents' Act by requiring clear and convincing evidence of intentional or reckless misconduct to recover certain damages. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held the arbitration agreement void as contrary to public policy because it would substantially impair negligence actions and dismantle statutory protections for nursing home patients.
The arbitration agreement is void and unenforceable because it substantially impairs negligence actions and is contrary to public policy protecting nursing home residents. The court, not the arbitrator, must determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists when ruling on a motion to compel arbitration. The offending provisions could not be severed because the arbitration agreement lacked a severability clause and was completely unenforceable.
[1] An arbitration agreement that substantially limits a nursing home patient's remedies provided under the Nursing Home Residents' Act is void as contrary to public policy.
[2] A court, not an arbitrator, must determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It would be against public policy to permit a nursing home to dismantle the protections afforded patients by the Legislature through the use of an arbitration agreement.”
Establishes the core public policy rationale for voiding the arbitration agreement—nursing homes cannot use arbitration to circumvent statutory patient protections.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Stokes signed an arbitration agreement upon admission to a nursing home operated by SA-PG-Ocala, LLC. The agreement incorporated the American Hea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Incidental Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANDER, J.
The issue in this case is whether the arbitration agreement entered into between a nursing home and a nursing home patient was void as contrary to public policy because it substantially limited the patient’s remedies provided under the Nursing Home Residents’ Act. §§ 400.022-400.023, Fla. Stat. (2001). Consistent with the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 917 So. 2d 195 (Fla.2005), we find the arbitration agreement to be void and therefore affirm the trial court’s decision denying appellants’ motions to compel arbitration.
In connection with her admission to appellants’ nursing home, appellee, Mary Stokes, signed an arbitration agreement providing that any controversy or dispute between the parties would be resolved by arbitration, as provided for by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Service Rules of Procedure for Arbitration of the American Health Lawyers Association (“AHLA”). Section 6.06 of such rules provides, in part:
[T]he arbitrator may not award consequential, exemplary, incidental, punitive or special damages against a party un less the arbitrator determines, based on the record, that there is clear and convincing evidence that the party against whom such damages are awarded is guilty of conduct evincing an intentional or reckless disregard for the rights of another party or fraud, actual or presumed.
As noted in Blankfeld, requiring clear and convincing evidence of intentional or reckless misconduct to recover certain damages would substantially impair negligence actions brought by nursing home patients, and would be contrary to the Nursing Home Residents’ Act. Such Act was enacted to protect nursing home patients. It would be against public policy to permit a nursing home to dismantle the protections afforded patients by the Legislature through the use of an arbitration agreement. See also Lacey v. Healthcare and Retirement Corp. of America, 918 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
Appellants argue that the arbitrator, not the court, should determine if the remedial limitations set forth in this arbitration agreement render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. We disagree. It is the court’s obligation, in deciding a motion to compel arbitration, to determine whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists.1 Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla.2005); See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla.1999).
Appellants next argue that the offending provisions of the AHLA rules may be severed from the arbitration provision. Again, we disagree. The offending provisions of the AHLA rules were incorporated into the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement did not include a severability clause. Accordingly, these provisions served to taint the entire agreement and rendered the arbitration agreement completely unenforceable. Presidential Leasing, Inc. v. Krout, 896 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). The trial court correctly refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and MONACO, JJ., concur. . Appellants rely on Rollins, Inc. v. Lighthouse Bay Holdings, Ltd., 898 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 908 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.2005), to support their contention the enforceability of the arbitration agreement should be decided by the arbitrator. However, a close reading of Rollins reflects the court initially determined the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable. Only after determining the validity of the arbitration agreement did the Second District Court of Appeal decide the enforceability of certain provisions limiting statutory remedies should be determined by the arbitrator. In this case, the arbitration agreement does not survive the threshold determination of validity.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 2011)…er the agreement contained a severability clause. See Fletcher, 952 So. 2d 1225 (rejecting severability where contract, contained a severability clause and provisions that capped noneco-nomic damages at $250,000 and waived punitive damages); Stokes, 935 So. 2d 1242 (rejecting severability where contract contained no severability clause and contained provisions that capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 and waived punitive damages). The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Place at Vero Beach, Inc. v. Hanson, 9…1 / 4
-
Alterra Healthcare Corp. (as to Alterra Sterling House of Vero Beach & Clare Bridge Cottage of Vero Beach) v. Bryant, 937 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…1 So. 2d at 61-63; see also Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296, 298-99 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that an arbitration provision’s limitation on NHRA’s remedies is void as contrary to public policy); SA-PG-Ocala, LLC v. Stokes, 935 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (adopting Blankfeld’s reasoning in rendering an arbitration agreement entered into between a nursing home and nursing home patient void as against public policy). Alterra urges this court to reevaluate its decisions in Blankfeld…
-
Gessa v. Manor Care OF Fla., Inc., 86 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2011)…See Fletcher v. Huntington Place Ltd. P’ship, 952 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (rejecting severability where contract capped noneconomic damages at $250,000, precluded punitive damages, and had a severability clause); SA-PG-Ocala, LLC v. Stokes, 935 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (rejecting severability where agreement contained provisions that capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 and precluded punitive damages, and had no severability clause). . See, e.g., Hanson, 953 So. 2d 773 (affirming the trial c…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1999)
- Global Travel Mktg., Inc. v. Shea, 908 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2005)
- Blankfeld v. Richmond Health Care, Inc., 902 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Lacey v. Healthcare & Ret. Corp. OF Am., 918 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Rollins, Inc. v. Lighthouse BAY Holdings, Ltd., 898 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- The Florida Bar v. Brown, 917 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2005)
- Logsdon v. State, 908 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2005)
- Presidential Leasing, Inc. v. Krout, 896 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)