Published on:

Doe v. Canton Regency (2011 WL 193344 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.)

Doe v. Canton RegencyArticles: Ohio

Doe v. Canton Regency (2011 WL 193344 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.)

CASE:
Doe v. Canton Regency (2011 WL 193344 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.)
PARTIES:
Plaintiff (Appellee) – Jill Doe, as Executrix for the Estate of Jane Doe (Deceased)
Defendant (Appellant) – Canton Regency Residential Care
COURT:
Court of Appeals of Ohio (2011)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

On July 15, 2009, Jane Doe (still living at the time), filed a complaint against defendant nursing facility, alleging negligence in failing to enforce its policies regarding unwanted visitors, resulting in injuries and violating her rights under the Nursing Home Bill of Rights.

On October 9, 2009, Regency filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, a motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. On January 11, 2010, Jane Doe passed away. On February 5, 2010, Jill Doe was named Executrix of Jane Doe’s estate and was substituted as plaintiff in the case. On March 26, 2010, the trial court denied Regency’s motion to dismiss and granted the motion to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration. Doe appealed that decision.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

On October 8, 2005, Jane Doe and her husband moved into the Canton Regency Independent Center, and independent living apartment facility. At that time, they signed the Resident Agreement and its attachments.

The paperwork signed at that point in time did not contain any arbitration agreement. On June 13, 2007, Jane Doe moved from her independent living apartment into a Special Care apartment still within the Canton Regency facility. At that time, Jane Doe and her Power of Attorney signed the “Canton Regency Residential Care Special Care Facility Admission Agreement and Attachments.” Within this paperwork was a section titled “Limitation of Liability/Arbitration Agreement.”

Subsequent to that signing, Jane Doe alleged the injuries in the above complaint.

OUTCOME AT TRIAL:

The trail court compelled arbitration, based on the fact that the agreement signed on June 13, 2007 was enforceable. Admission into the higher care facility was consideration enough to find a valid agreement between the parties.

ISSUES ON APPEAL:

Did the trial court err n finding the Limitation of Liability/Arbitration Agreement enforceable based on valid consideration?

SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS:
No
RELEVANT APPLICATION OF LAW:
“A valid arbitration agreement, like any contract, requires an offer and acceptance that is supported by consideration and is premised on the parties’ meeting of the minds as to the essential terms of the agreement.”

  • Miller v. Lindsay-Green, Inc.

Client Reviews

  • Having worked in the medical field, I appreciated the way that Mr. Rosenfeld and his staff approached my family’s situation. The combination of medical knowledge and legal expertise was indeed the winning combination for our case.
    ★★★★★
  • While nothing can change the way our mother was treated at a nursing facility, I do feel a sense of vindication that the facility was forced to pay for their treatment. I am certain that they would never have done had my attorneys not held their feet to the fire.
    ★★★★★
  • I was very nervous about initiating a claim against my mother’s nursing facility, but Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers took care of everything from getting the medical records to going to court. I felt like I had real advocates on my side. That meant a lot to me.
    ★★★★★
  • After a horrific episode at a nursing home, my sister and I spoke to a number of law firms. No one took the time to answer our questions and explain the legal process like Mr. Rosenfeld. He did a tremendous job on our case and I can see why he’s earned the praise he has from clients and peers.
    ★★★★★
  • I liked the fact that I could call the office and ask questions about the legal process at anytime. I could tell that my case was in good hands. I think that this was reflected in my father’s settlement was more than I anticipated the case ever being worth.
    ★★★★★