Gayle v. Regeis Care Ctr., LLC

• Decision Date: 25 February 2021
• Docket Number: 13232N,Case No. 2020-01339,Index No. 28615/17E
• Citation: 191 A.D.3d 598,143 N.Y.S.3d 343
• Parties: Jean GAYLE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Clarence Gayle, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REGEIS CARE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants, Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

191 A.D.3d 598

143 N.Y.S.3d 343

Jean GAYLE, as Administratrix of the Estate of Clarence Gayle, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.REGEIS CARE CENTER, LLC, et al., Defendants,Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

13232N

Index No. 28615/17E

Case No. 2020-01339

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED February 25, 2021

Parker Waichman LLP, Port Washington (Jay L.T. Breakstone of counsel), for appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for respondents.

Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Kern, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert T. Johnson, J.), entered on or about January 30, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of the Jewish Home defendants to compel arbitration as to them, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

Plaintiff is the wife and Administratrix of her husband's estate. Prior to the decedent's death, plaintiff and her adult daughter, who is a nonparty to this action, brought the decedent to defendant Jewish Home Lifecare's nursing home facility (JHL) to have him admitted into the facility. At the time decedent was presented for admission, a JHL nurse medically evaluated him and found him to be suffering from physical and cognitive impairments such that he was unable to legally express his wishes or fully understand the proposed legal terms for his admission to the facility. Plaintiff and her daughter received a JHL admission agreement and comprehensive care plan for review and eventually to execute and return. The decedent had no health care proxy or agent pursuant to power of attorney.

After discussing aftercare directives with the decedent's primary physician, the daughter executed medical orders pertaining to life-sustaining treatment and other relevant medical treatment forms as her father's surrogate decision-maker pursuant to Public Health Law § 2994–d. Additionally, and after conversing with plaintiff, the daughter executed the JHL admission agreement (the Agreement) and care plan on her father's behalf.

The daughter's ability to execute the foregoing documents on behalf of her father stems from the statutory authority set out in New York's Family Health Care Decisions Act (FHCDA), found in New York's Public Health Law (PHL) § 2994. The FHCDA authorizes a family member or close friend of a patient, who lacks decisional capacity and who has not set in place prior instructions as to their health care wishes, to serve as the patient's health care representative, with "authority to make any and all...