In a case featuring an amicus curiae brief written by ElderLawAnswers member attorney Rebecca J. Benson, the highest court in Massachusetts rules that agents named in health care proxies do not have the authority to sign arbitration agreements on behalf of nursing home residents. In a companion case, the court rules that family members signing arbitration agreements as "responsible parties" also lack authority to bind residents. Johnson v. Kindred Health Care (Mass., No. SJC-11335, Jan. 13, 2014) and Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC (Mass., No. SJC-11336, Jan. 13, 2014).
Dalton Johnson entered a nursing home in September 2007. The following August, Mr. Johnson's wife Barbara signed an arbitration agreement with the facility on Mr. Johnson's behalf as his health care agent. In 2009, Mr. Johnson sustained burns at the facility and eventually died. When Mr. Johnson's estate filed a wrongful death suit, the facility sought to enforce the arbitration agreement, and a trial court granted its request. Mr. Johnson's estate appealed, arguing that a health care agent only has the authority to make health care decisions on behalf of the principal and that executing an arbitration agreement is not such a decision.
In a second case, Salvatore Licata, Jr. signed an arbitration agreement as the "responsible party" when his mother, Rita Licata, entered a nursing home. Ms. Licata had executed a health care proxy naming Salvatore as her agent shortly before she entered the nursing home, but no doctor had activated the proxy when Salvatore signed the agreement. After Ms. Licata died in the nursing home, her estate sued for wrongful death, but in this case the trial court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement. The facility appealed, arguing that the health care proxy had been activated when a hospital doctor executed paperwork transferring Ms. Licata to the nursing home, and that even if the health care proxy was not valid, Ms. Licata was still bound by the arbitration agreement because Salvatore signed it as her responsible party.
Considering both cases in tandem, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court refuses to allow the nursing homes to enforce the respective arbitration agreements. In Johnson, which the court cites in upholding the trial court's decision in Licata, the court finds "[t]hat a competent principal could have decided to enter into an arbitration agreement does not answer the core question we confront: whether our Legislature intended the term ‘health care decision’ to include the decision to waive a principal's right of access to the courts and to trial by jury . . . Our health care proxy statute reflects no such intent. The language of G.L. c 201D § 5, considered in the context of its purpose and the broader statutory framework, authorizes the agent only to make those decisions requiring a principal's informed consent to a medical treatment, service, or procedure; it does not authorize a health care agent to make all decisions that a principal could have made if competent, even those that might bear some relationship to the receipt of medical services." Going further in Licata, the court finds that "[i]t would be unreasonable to recognize a wider scope of authority for a responsible party, not appointed by the principal, than exists for a health care agent, designed by the principal."
For the full text of the decision in Johnson, click here.
For the full text of the decision in Licata, click here.
For additional background on the cases from Rebecca J. Benson, click here.
Did you know that the ElderLawAnswers database now contains summaries of more than 2,000 fully searchable elder law decisions dating back to 1993? To search the database, click here.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
