Published on:

Mannion v. Manor Care, Inc. (2006 WL 6012873 (Pa.Com.Pl), 4 Pa. D. & C. 5th 321)

Nursing-home-abuse-neglect-Pennsylvania-elderly-woman-300x200Articles: Pennsylvania

Mannion v. Manor Care, Inc. (2006 WL 6012873 (Pa.Com.Pl), 4 Pa. D. & C. 5th 321)

Mannion v. Manor Care, Inc. (2006 WL 6012873 (Pa.Com.Pl), 4 Pa. D. & C. 5th 321)
Plaintiff (Appellee) – Edith Mannion, Administratrix for the Estate of Marian Flueso (Deceased)
Defendant (Appellant) – Manor Care, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Lehigh County (2006)
Plaintiff commenced an action against defendant nursing home to recover money damages on behalf of the estate of her mother and on her own behalf under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts. Defendant made a preliminary objection to the complaint, arguing that the dispute must be submitted to arbitration.
On or about January 13, 2004, Ms. Flueso (deceased) was admitted to the Manor Care nursing home facility. She was transferred there from Sacred Heart Hospital where she had been a patient. At the time she was transferred, she was in a confused state. Her daughter, Ms. Mannion (plaintiff), held a power of attorney authorizing her to act on Ms. Flueso’s behalf. At the time of the transfer, Ms. Mannion was under great pressure to act promptly in moving her mother from the hospital. Ms. Mannion received the 21 page admission document via fax. She admits to not reading all of the documents carefully before signing and faxing them back. Incorporated in the admission packet was a 6 page agreement entitled “Arbitration and Limitation of Liability Agreement.” This section essentially outlined the fact that any and all claims related to the resident’s stay and care at the facility would be handled through binding arbitration.
The court sustained the objection and ordered the case be submitted to arbitration.
Whether the arbitration and limitation of liability agreement signed by the Plaintiff when she admitted her mother to the nursing home was a) a contract of adhesion; or 2) unconscionable.
The court found that the agreement signed by the plaintiff was enforceable for 2 main reasons.


1) There was no evidence that the agreement was in fact a prerequisite for Ms. Flueso’s admission to the Manor Care facility. While she may have had no meaningful choice but to sign, that was due to her state of mind in the emergency conditions under which she was functioning when she signed the agreement.

2) The agreement permitted the signatory (plaintiff) to withdraw her consent to arbitration within three business days after execution of the agreement. There was no indication in the agreement that the consequence of revocation would be the discharge of Ms. Flueso from the facility.

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.