Mitchell v. Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc.
2008 Tenn. App. LEXIS 676, 2008 WL 4936505, 349 S.W.3d 492 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party seeking to invalidate a contract on the grounds of mental incapacity bears the burden of proving they were unable to reasonably understand the transaction's nature and consequences, or that they were unable to act reasonably and the other party knew of their condition. A durable power of attorney for health care can grant the agent authority to enter into a binding arbitration agreement on behalf of the principal as part of the health care decision-making process.
Facts:
- Mack Mitchell, who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, executed a durable power of attorney for health care on July 22, 2004, appointing his wife, Lovie Mitchell, as his agent.
- Lovie Mitchell was undergoing chemotherapy for Stage 3 cancer and taking medications that caused side effects, including blurry vision and difficulty concentrating.
- Following a stroke in March 2005, Mack Mitchell, who was no longer competent, was admitted to Cordova Rehabilitation and Nursing Center ('Cordova').
- On April 8, 2005, Lovie Mitchell met with Cordova's admissions counselor, Ron Lee, to complete admissions paperwork for her husband.
- Lee presented her with several documents, including a standalone 'Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement' (ADR Agreement), which stated it was not a precondition for admission and could be revoked within 30 days.
- Lovie Mitchell signed the ADR Agreement on behalf of her husband, allegedly without reading it due to her medical condition, instead relying on Lee's summary.
- Mack Mitchell remained at Cordova until his death on July 13, 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- Lovie Mitchell, as executor of Mack Mitchell’s estate, filed a complaint against Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. ('Kindred') in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, a trial court.
- Kindred filed a motion to compel arbitration based on the ADR Agreement.
- The parties conducted discovery regarding the circumstances of the agreement's execution.
- The trial court denied Kindred's motion, finding that Lovie Mitchell lacked the mental capacity to execute the agreement.
- Kindred (Appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, with Lovie Mitchell as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an arbitration agreement, signed by a spouse acting under a durable power of attorney for health care, unenforceable due to the spouse's alleged mental incapacity at the time of signing?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Steven Stafford, J.
No, the arbitration agreement is not unenforceable. The durable power of attorney for health care provided Lovie Mitchell with the authority to execute the arbitration agreement on her husband's behalf, and she failed to meet the high burden of proof required to invalidate the contract on the grounds of mental incapacity. First, citing Owens v. National Health Corp., the court affirmed that the power of attorney, which granted authority to make health care decisions and execute related documents like waivers, was sufficient to authorize signing the ADR agreement. The court reasoned that contracting for health care is itself a legal decision, and an agent cannot be permitted to make some legal decisions (like admission) but not others (like arbitration). Second, the court found the agreement was not unconscionable, as it was a separate, optional document that could be revoked and clearly disclosed the waiver of a jury trial. Third, the court held that Lovie Mitchell did not overcome the presumption of competency, as she failed to present evidence beyond her own testimony that her medical condition rendered her incompetent to sign the agreement, nor was there evidence that Cordova's employee had reason to know of her condition.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad authority granted by a durable power of attorney for health care, confirming that it extends to legal decisions incidental to securing medical services, such as signing arbitration agreements. It also establishes a high evidentiary bar for parties seeking to void a contract based on mental incapacity, requiring more than a party's subjective testimony about their condition at the time of signing. The ruling strengthens the enforceability of stand-alone, optional arbitration agreements in the nursing home context, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to avoid arbitration and proceed with a jury trial.
