Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, Nos. 11–391

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Citation182 L.Ed.2d 42,565 U.S. 530,132 S.Ct. 1201
Docket Number11–394.,Nos. 11–391
Decision Date21 February 2012
Parties MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., et al. v. Clayton BROWN, et al. Clarksburg Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, dba Clarksburg Continuous Care Center, et al. v. Sharon A. Marchio, executrix of the Estate of Pauline Virginia Willett.

565 U.S. 530
132 S.Ct.
1201
182 L.Ed.2d 42

MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., et al.
v.
Clayton BROWN, et al.

Clarksburg Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Center, LLC, dba Clarksburg Continuous Care Center, et al.
v.
Sharon A. Marchio, executrix of the Estate of Pauline Virginia Willett.

Nos. 11–391
11–394.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 21, 2012.


132 S.Ct. 1202

PER CURIAM.

565 U.S. 530

State and federal courts must enforce the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., with respect to all

565 U.S. 531

arbitration agreements covered by that statute. Here, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, by misreading and disregarding the precedents of this Court interpreting the FAA, did not follow controlling federal law implementing that basic principle. The state court held unenforceable all predispute arbitration agreements that apply to claims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes.

The decision of the state court found the FAA's coverage to be more limited than mandated by this Court's previous cases. The decision of the State Supreme Court of Appeals must be vacated. When this Court has fulfilled its duty to interpret federal law, a state court may not contradict or fail to implement the rule so established. See U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.

I

This litigation involves three negligence suits against nursing homes in West Virginia. The suits were brought by Clayton Brown, Jeffrey Taylor, and Sharon Marchio. In each case, a family member of a patient requiring extensive nursing care had signed an agreement with a nursing home on behalf of the patient. The relevant parts of the agreements in Brown's

132 S.Ct. 1203

case and Taylor's case were identical. The contracts included a clause requiring the parties to arbitrate all disputes, other than claims to collect late payments owed by the patient. The contracts included a provision holding the party filing the arbitration responsible for paying a filing fee in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association fee schedules. The agreement in Marchio's case also included a clause requiring arbitration but made no exceptions to the arbitration requirement and did not mention filing fees.

In each of the three cases, a family member of a patient who had died sued the nursing home in state court, alleging that negligence caused injuries or harm resulting in death. A state trial court dismissed the suits by Brown and Taylor

565 U.S. 532

based on the agreements to arbitrate. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia consolidated those cases with Marchio's, which was before the court on other issues.

In a decision concerning all three cases, the state court held that "as a matter of public policy under West Virginia law, an arbitration clause in a nursing home admission agreement adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that results in a personal injury or wrongful death, shall not be enforced to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning the negligence." Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., ––– S.E.2d ––––, No. 35494, 2011 WL 2611327 (W.Va., June 29, 2011), App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 11–391, pp. 85a–86a (hereinafter Pet.App.). The state court considered whether the state public policy was pre-empted by the FAA. The state court found unpersuasive this Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
315 practice notes
  • Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Becerra, No. 2:19-cv-02456-KJM-DB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 6, 2020
    ...Cir. 2013) ("[The FAA] reflects an ‘emphatic federal policy’ in favor of arbitration." (quoting Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown , 565 U.S. 530, 533, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012) ).III. ASSEMBLY BILL 51 A. Statutory Text California Assembly Bill 51 aims to make two additions ......
  • Adams v. John M. O'Quinn & Assocs., PLLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-00071-GHD-JMV
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • March 21, 2017
    ...save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.' " Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 532, 132 S. Ct. 1201, 182 L. Ed. 2d 42 (2012) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2). It "requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate," Dea......
  • Mercado v. Schwartz, 14-0064748
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • January 10, 2019
    ...of unconscionable agreements, are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (see63 Misc.3d 371 Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown , 565 U.S. 530, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 [2012] [state public policy against enforcing arbitration clauses in admission agreements between patients' f......
  • Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 10 Civ. 6950 (AT) (RWL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • March 26, 2020
    ...backdrop of the "emphatic federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution." Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown , 565 U.S. 530, 533, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012) (internal citations omitted). The 449 F.Supp.3d 234 Second Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that "waiver of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
324 cases
  • Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Becerra, No. 2:19-cv-02456-KJM-DB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 6, 2020
    ...Cir. 2013) ("[The FAA] reflects an ‘emphatic federal policy’ in favor of arbitration." (quoting Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown , 565 U.S. 530, 533, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 (2012) ).III. ASSEMBLY BILL 51 A. Statutory Text California Assembly Bill 51 aims to make two additions ......
  • Adams v. John M. O'Quinn & Assocs., PLLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-cv-00071-GHD-JMV
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • March 21, 2017
    ...save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.' " Marmet Health Care Ctr., Inc. v. Brown, 565 U.S. 530, 532, 132 S. Ct. 1201, 182 L. Ed. 2d 42 (2012) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2). It "requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties to arbitrate," Dea......
  • Mercado v. Schwartz, 14-0064748
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • January 10, 2019
    ...of unconscionable agreements, are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (see63 Misc.3d 371 Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown , 565 U.S. 530, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 182 L.Ed.2d 42 [2012] [state public policy against enforcing arbitration clauses in admission agreements between patients' f......
  • Sparks v. Vista Del Mar Child & Family Servs., No. B234988.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2012
    ...a rule is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. (9 U.S.C. § 2; Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown (2012) 565 U.S. ––––, ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1201, 1203, 182 L.Ed.2d 42;AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ––––, ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1750, 179 L.Ed.2d 742.) Sixth, the agree......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT