Estate of Ladson v. THI of S.C. at Charleston
Decision Date | 06 April 2022 |
Docket Number | 2022-UP-169 |
Parties | Estate of Richard Ladson, Jr., by and through Personal Representative Richard Miles Ladson, Sr., POA, Respondent, v. THI of South Carolina at Charleston, LLC d/b/a Riverside Health and Rehab, Appellant. |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
Submitted March 1, 2022.
Appeal From Charleston County Appellate Case No. 2019-001413 Jennifer B. McCoy, Circuit Court Judge.
Stephen Lynwood Brown, Russell Grainger Hines, and Donald Jay Davis, Jr., all of Clement Rivers, LLP, of Charleston, for Appellant.
Carl Everette Pierce, II, Benjamin Catlett Smoot, II, and Carl Everette Pierce, III, all of Pierce, Sloan, Wilson, Kennedy & Early, LLC, of Charleston, for Respondent.
THI of South Carolina at Charleston, LLC, d/b/a Riverside Health and Rehab (THI) appeals the circuit court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, THI argues the circuit court erred in denying its motion because the merger of the at-issue arbitration agreement (Arbitration Agreement) with the admission agreement (Admission Agreement) equitably estopped Richard Ladson, Jr.'s estate from denying the validity of the arbitration agreement. We affirm.
The circuit court did not err in denying THI's motion to compel arbitration because the admission agreement and the arbitration agreement did not merge. See Berry v Spang, 433 S.C. 1, 9, 855 S.E.2d 309, 314 (Ct. App. 2021) , petition for cert. filed (S.C. Apr. 23 2021); Wilson v. Willis, 426 S.C. 326, 335, 827 S.E.2d 167, 172 (2019) (); Berry, 433 S.C. at 9, 855 S.E.2d at 314 ; Coleman v. Mariner Health Care, Inc., 407 S.C. 346, 355, 755 S.E.2d 450, 455 (2014) ( ); Hodge v. UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC, 422 S.C. 544, 562-63, 813 S.E.2d 292, 302 (Ct. App. 2018) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial