Saltzman v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc.
Decision Date | 30 June 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 2593 EDA 2015,2593 EDA 2015 |
Citation | 166 A.3d 465 |
Parties | Leslie SALTZMAN, D.O., Appellee v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS, INC. and Jefferson Medical Care, Appellants |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Lee D. Moylan, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Rahul Munshi, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc. and Jefferson Medical Care (together, "Jefferson") appeal from the July 17, 2015 order entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas overruling Jefferson's preliminary objections to the complaint of Leslie Saltzman, D.O. and ordering Jefferson to file an answer within 20 days.1 We reverse and remand.
The trial court set forth the following facts:
Opinion, 7/11/16, at 1–2 ("1925(a) Op.").
On May 8, 2015, Saltzman filed a complaint against Jefferson, alleging claims for retaliation in violation of the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. §§ 1421 –28, and common law wrongful termination. Jefferson filed preliminary objections, seeking to compel arbitration pursuant to the Agreement. On July 17, 2015, the trial court overruled the preliminary objections and ordered Jefferson to file an answer within 20 days.
In its opinion, the trial court offered three reasons for denying Jefferson's preliminary objections. First, the trial court stated that "[t]he fact that [TJUH] was not a party to the Physician Service Agreement was a critical factor" in its decision not to compel arbitration. 1925(a) Op. at 3–4. The court explained that because TJUH "was not a party to the ... Agreement, [Saltzman] could not knowingly waive her right to sue [TJUH] in a court of law when she" signed the Agreement. Id. at 3.2 Second, the trial court found that the "Agreement was an unconscionable contract of adhesion" that unreasonably favored Jefferson. Id. at 4. In making this determination, the court asserted that Jefferson failed to establish that Saltzman read and understood the consequences of the arbitration provision before signing the Agreement. Id. Third, the trial court concluded that "[c]ompelling arbitration in this matter would be fundamentally incompatible with the remedial and deterrent functions of the" Whistleblower Law, finding that "[t]he citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the public at large, have an interest in the public resolution of" Saltzman's claims. Id. at 5. Jefferson timely appealed to this Court.
Jefferson raises the following issues on appeal:
Our review of an order overruling preliminary objections seeking to compel arbitration "is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition." Callan v. Oxford Land Dev., Inc., 858 A.2d 1229, 1233 (Pa.Super. 2004). In making this determination, we consider the following principles:
(1) arbitration agreements are to be strictly construed and not extended by implication; and (2) when parties have agreed to arbitrate in a clear and unmistakable manner, every reasonable effort should be made to favor the agreement unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause involved is not susceptible to an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.
Id. (quoting Highmark Inc. v. Hospital Serv. Ass'n of Northeastern Pa., 785 A.2d 93, 98 (Pa.Super. 2001) ). Whether a dispute is within the scope of an arbitration agreement is a question of law for which our scope of review is plenary. Provenzano v. Ohio Valley Gen. Hosp., 121 A.3d 1085, 1095 (Pa.Super. 2015).
Pennsylvania courts apply the liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements embodied in the FAA. See id. As our Supreme Court recently emphasized, courts are "obligat[ed] to consider questions of arbitrability with a ‘healthy regard for the federal policy favoring arbitration.’ " Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., ––– Pa. ––––, 147 A.3d 490, 509 (2016) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 20, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1375, 197 L.Ed.2d 555 (2017). "[T]he FAA binds state courts to compel arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement." Id. (citing 9 U.S.C. § 2 ).3 "This directive is mandatory, requiring parties to proceed to arbitration on issues subject to a valid arbitration agreement, even if a state law would otherwise exclude it from arbitration." Id. "The only exception to a state's obligation to enforce an arbitration agreement is provided by the savings clause, which permits the application of generally applicable state contract law defenses such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, to determine whether a valid contract exists." Id. ; see also Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P'ship v. Clark, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1421, 1426, 197 L.Ed.2d 806 (2017) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Heckman v. Wellsboro, 4:20-CV-01680
... ... rule was aptly articulated in MedImmune , Inc ... v ... Genentech , Inc ... 147 There, the ... quotation marks omitted) (quoting Thomas v ... Union Carbide Agric ... Prods ... Co ., 473 ... Hefner v ... Hackensack Univ ... Med ... Ctr ., 495 F.3d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 2007) ... 218. Saltzman v ... Thomas Jefferson Univ ... Hosps ., Inc ., ... ...
-
Waller v. The Habilitation Grp.
... ... Uber Techs., Inc. , 951 F.3d 137, 144 (3d Cir. 2020) ... Saltzman v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc. , 166 ... ...
-
Siegel v. Goldstein
... ... Assocs ., L ... L ... C ... v ... Mattel , Inc ., 552 U.S. 576, 590 (2008), and is thus a final ... See , e ... g ., Saltzman v ... Thomas Jefferson Univ ... Hosps ., Inc ., ... ...
-
In re Atkinson
... ... Meitner, Blue Bell, for Brady, appellee.Thomas A. Boulden, Fort Washington, for Joseph Atkinson, ... National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. or the arbitration facility provided by the New ... 7320(a)(1) and Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8). Saltzman v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Inc. , ... ...