Hodge v. Unihealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC, Appellate Case No. 2015-001183

• Decision Date: 07 March 2018
• Docket Number: Opinion No. 5541,Appellate Case No. 2015-001183
• Citation: 813 S.E.2d 292,422 S.C. 544
• Parties: Camille HODGE, Jr., as personal representative of the estate of Mable Hodge, Respondent, v. UNIHEALTH POST-ACUTE CARE OF BAMBERG, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp.; R. Dale Padgett, M.D., P.A.; and Dr. Herbert A. Moskow; Defendants, Of which UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp. are the Appellants. Camille Hodge, Sr., Respondent, v. UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp.; R. Dale Padgett, M.D., P.A.; and Dr. Herbert A. Moskow; Defendants, Of which UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp. are the Appellants.
• Court: South Carolina Court of Appeals

422 S.C. 544

813 S.E.2d 292

Camille HODGE, Jr., as personal representative of the estate of Mable Hodge, Respondent,

v.UNIHEALTH POST-ACUTE CARE OF BAMBERG, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp.; R. Dale Padgett, M.D., P.A.; and Dr. Herbert A. Moskow; Defendants,Of which UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp. are the Appellants.

Camille Hodge, Sr., Respondent,

v.UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp.; R. Dale Padgett, M.D., P.A.; and Dr. Herbert A. Moskow; Defendants,Of which UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp. are the Appellants.

Appellate Case No. 2015-001183

Opinion No. 5541

Court of Appeals of South Carolina.

Heard May 2, 2017

Filed March 7, 2018

Rehearing Denied May 2, 2018

Monteith Powell Todd and John Michael Montgomery, both of Sowell Gray Robinson Stepp & Laffitte, LLC, and Robert E. Horner, of Speed, Seta, Martin, Trivett & Stubley, LLC, all of Columbia, for Appellants.

Joseph Preston Strom and Bakari T. Sellers, both of Strom Law Firm, LLC, of Columbia; and Wallace K. Lightsey and Meliah Bowers Jefferson, both of Wyche Law Firm, of Greenville; and John Carroll Moylan, III, of Wyche Law Firm, of Columbia, for Respondents.

KONDUROS, J.:

In this medical malpractice case, UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC f/k/a Bamberg County Nursing Center; United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. a/k/a UHS-Pruitt Corp. (collectively, Appellants) appeal the circuit court's determination an arbitration agreement did not apply.

Appellants argue the circuit court erred in denying their motion to compel arbitration on several bases. They also maintain the circuit court erred in denying their motion to compel the deposition of Camille Hodge, Sr., one of the Respondents, whose testimony they assert is relevant to whether the arbitration agreement is binding. We affirm.

FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mable Hodge entered a rehabilitation facility—UniHealth Post-Acute Care of Bamberg, LLC (the Facility)—on August 31, 2010, after being hospitalized for heart and kidney problems. The Facility is owned by United Health Services of South Carolina, Inc.; United Health Services, Inc.; and UHS-Pruitt Holdings, Inc. According to her doctor's records, Mable was "well developed" and "in no real distress" and had a full range of motion in her extremities when she entered the Facility. Her husband, Camille Hodge Sr., (Husband) executed various documents related to her admission, including an Arbitration Agreement and an Admission Agreement. The Facility had an Arbitration Checklist. The first item on the checklist was "Determine competency of patient/resident." The last item on the checklist was "Secure appropriate signatures," which provided:

Competent, capable of signature —

Patient/resident must initial each page in the lower right hand corner and sign and date the final page in the presence of Admissions Coordinator and one witness.

Competent, incapable of signature —

Have the patient/resident verbally confirm in the presence of two (2) healthcare center/agency witnesses that the patient/resident authorizes their family member or friend to sign on the patient/resident's behalf. Have the two (2) healthcare center/agency witnesses execute the contract.

Mable was not present at the time her husband signed these documents on the day before her admission as she was still in the hospital. Mable was competent at the time of her admission and signed additional documents on the day she arrived at the Facility. She had no health care power of attorney at that time.

In both agreements, the top of every page was labeled either "ADMISSION AGREEMENT" or "ARBITRATION AGREEMENT," respectively. The Admission Agreement was individually paginated with pages numbered 1 through 12. The Arbitration Agreement was also individually paginated with pages numbered 1 through 5. Each of these documents contained its own signature page as the last page of each agreement.

The Arbitration Agreement provided:

Any and all claims or controversies arising out of or in any way relating to this Agreement or the Patient/Resident's Admission Agreement, including the interpretation of either, or the Patient/Resident's stay at, or the care or services provided by, the Healthcare Center, or any acts or omissions in connection with such care or services, including care or services provided prior to the date that this Agreement was signed, whether arising out of State or Federal law, whether existing or arising in the future, whether for statutory, compensatory or punitive damages, and whether sounding in breach of contract, tort, or breach of statutory or regulatory duties (including, without limitation, any claim based on an alleged violation of the state bill of rights for Patients/Residents of long-term care facilities or federal Patient/Resident's rights, any claim based on negligence, any claim for damages resulting from death or injury to any person arising out of care or service rendered by the Healthcare Center or by any officer, agent, or partner thereof acting within the scope of his or her employment, any claim based on any other departure from accepted standards of health care or safety, or any claim for unpaid nursing home charges), irrespective of the basis for the duty or of the legal theories upon which the claim is asserted, shall be submitted for arbitration.

The Arbitration Agreement specified "signing of this Agreement is not a precondition to admission." The Arbitration Agreement also stated it could be revoked with notice to the Facility within thirty days. The Arbitration Agreement also noted "[i]n signing this Agreement, Patient/Resident Representative binds both Patient/Resident and Patient/Resident Representative individually." Husband signed but left blank a line on the Arbitration Agreement where he was to indicate his capacity of representation.

The Arbitration Agreement also provided:

[T]his Agreement shall be governed by and enforced under federal law, specifically, the Federal Arbitration Act ( 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 - 16 ), as opposed to state arbitration law, notwithstanding any provision of state law or any other understanding or agreement between the parties. The parties specifically exclude the application of South Carolina's Uniform Arbitration Act.

The Admission Agreement stated in pertinent part:

I. This Agreement shall be construed, governed and enforced under the laws of the State of South Carolina. This Agreement together with all exhibits is the exclusive statement of the terms and conditions between the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein, and supersedes all prior agreements, negotiations, representations, tender documents, and proposals, written and oral with respect to the subject matter hereof. Variance from, or additions to, the terms and conditions of this Agreement in any written notification from Patient/Resident shall be of no effect.

J. This Agreement shall not be modified or amended in any respect by Patient/Resident except by written agreement executed by Healthcare Center and Patient/Resident in the same manner as this Agreement is executed. These provisions are subject to federal and state law and may be changed periodically to comply with these laws. This Agreement may be modified or amended by Healthcare Center if Healthcare Center sends a notice of the amendment to Patient/Resident thirty (30) days prior to the implementation of the amendment. If Patient/Resident does not reject such amendment in writing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the amendment, such amendment shall be deemed accepted and incorporated into this Agreement. This Agreement shall not be assigned, directly or indirectly, by Patient/Resident without the prior written consent of Healthcare Center. Any attempted assignment by Patient/Resident not in full compliance herewith shall be void and of no force or effect. This Agreement is freely assignable by Healthcare Center.

Around three weeks after her admission, after complaining of increasingly severe back pain, Mable was not able to feel her legs or arms, was unable to stand, and was ultimately transported to Richland Memorial Hospital, where hospital staff confirmed she was paralyzed from the waist down. Mable never walked again and died one year later as a result of her paralysis.

Camille Hodge, Jr. (Son)—Mable and Husband's son—was appointed personal representative of Mable's estate. Husband and Son, in his capacity as personal representative, filed a notice of intent to sue and later filed separate summons and complaints¹ against Appellants.² In addition to filing answers, Appellants filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration or alternatively, to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in both actions. Appellants also requested they be allowed to depose Husband on topics solely related to the arbitration issue.

The circuit court held a hearing on the motions and subsequently issued orders denying both the motion to dismiss or compel arbitration and the motion to compel the deposition of Husband. Specifically, the circuit court found the following facts were uncontested: (1) The Arbitration Agreement was signed only by the Facility and Husband; (2) Mable and Son did not sign the Arbitration Agreement; (3) Mable was competent at the time she was admitted to the Facility and when Husband signed Arbitration...