Published on:

Grant v. Magnolia Manor- Greenwood, Inc. (383 S.C.125, 678 S.E.2d 435)

elderly-man-south-carolina-nursing-home-abuse-300x198Articles: South Carolina

Grant v. Magnolia Manor- Greenwood, Inc. (383 S.C.125, 678 S.E.2d 435)

CASE:
Grant v. Magnolia Manor- Greenwood, Inc. (383 S.C.125, 678 S.E.2d 435)
PARTIES:
Plaintiff (Appellee) – James Grant, Individually and as personal representative of the estate of Lessie Mae Grant
Defendant (Appellant) – Magnolia Manor- Greenwood, Inc.
COURT:
Supreme Court of South Carolina (2009)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Grant, personally and as a representative for the estate of his late wife, filed a wrongful death claim against Magnolia Manor- Greenwood. Magnolia Manor filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied Magnolia Manor’s motion. They appealed the decision.

SUMMARY OF FACTS:

Lessie Mae Grant was admitted to Magnolia Manor- Greenwood nursing home on December 4, 2003 at the age of 72. Upon admission, Lessie Mae’s husband (the named defendant in this case) executed an admission contract on behalf of Lessie Mae, who was unable to sign the contract herself.

The admission contract contained an arbitration provision stating that any action or dispute between the resident and the nursing home be resolved by binding arbitration. The National Health Lawyers Association (“NHLA”) was designated as the administrator of any arbitration proceedings. The NHLA later became known as the American Healthcare Lawyers Association, or “AHLA.”

On January 1, 2004, the AHLA amended its rules for binding arbitrating health care liability claims. Under the new rules, the AHLA would only arbitrate claims pursuant to arbitration agreements entered into after the alleged injury occurred. Grant and Magnolia Manor never modified the admission agreement to reflect the AHLA policy change.

On January 11, 2005, Lessie Mae fell and sustained a large hematoma above her left eye. Five days later, she died as a result of the injury.

OUTCOME AT TRIAL:

The circuit court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding that the AHLA had become unavailable as an arbitrator, and that the designation of the AHLA as arbitrator was a material term in the arbitration agreement between the parties.

ISSUES ON APPEAL:

1)     Did the circuit court err in finding the arbitration agreement void and unenforceable because of the unavailability of the designated arbitrator?

2)     Did the circuit court err in failing to appoint substitute arbitrator or in failing to allow the parties to consent to a substitute arbitrator in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act?

SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS:

1)     No

2)     No

RELEVANT APPLICATION OF LAW:
“In order to have a valid and enforceable contract, there must be a meeting of the minds between the parties with regard to all essential material terms of the contract.”

  • Player v. Chandler, 299 S.C. 101, 105, 382 S.E.2d 891 (1989)

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.
    ★★★★★