03-3244 PRIETO V. HEALTHCARE

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2005 » 03-3244 PRIETO V. HEALTHCARE

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 03-3244 PRIETO V. HEALTHCARE

Case Date: 12/21/2005

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, A.D. 2005

LOURDES PRIETO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of VALENTIN PEREZ, Deceased, Appellant, vs. HEALTHCARE AND RETIREMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, etc., Appellee.

** ** ** ** ** ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 03-12324 CASE NO. 3D03-3244

Opinion filed December 21, 2005. An Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marc Schumacher, Judge. Fuller & Suarez; Philip M. Burlington (West Palm Beach), for appellant. Cole, Scott & Kissane and Christopher B. Hopkins (West Palm Beach), for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ. FLETCHER, Judge. This is an appeal from an order enforcing an agreement, which provided for arbitration and a limitation of liability. We reverse.

Between

October

2

and

17,

2001,

while

residing

at

a

nursing home owned and/or operated by Healthcare and Retirement Corporation of America, Valentin Perez suffered a urinary

infection which ultimately resulted in his death on October 31, 2001. Lourdes Prieto, as personal representative of her

father's estate, filed the instant action against Healthcare for negligence, wrongful death and violations of Chapter 400 Florida Statutes. Healthcare immediately demanded arbitration and moved

to stay the circuit court proceedings based on an agreement signed by Ms. Prieto in connection with her father's admission to the nursing home. The circumstances surrounding the signing of this agreement were considered by the trial court at an evidentiary hearing. Depositions from Ms. Prieto and the Healthcare admission

assistant revealed that, as her father was being transported from the hospital, to the Lourdes nursing Prieto, home the where daughter she was of Valentin by an

Perez,

went

met

admission assistant.

Ms. Prieto was given a package of forms

which she was told to sign in order to have her father admitted to the institution. The forms, which were signed by Ms. Prieto,

included an arbitration and limitation of liability agreement which required arbitration of any claims between the parties and placed limits on any damages recovered. Specifically, the

agreement provided for net economic damages to be recoverable,

2

but

limited

non-economic

damages

to

$250,000,

and

barred

recovery of punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. It also imposed limitations on discovery. In a memorandum in opposition to the demand for

arbitration, Ms. Prieto argued that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable and,

therefore, invalid. signing numerous

Ms. Prieto claims she was hurried into described as admission documents

documents

which were not explained to her.

She contends that she was

unable to fully read the documents because her father was en route and she was advised to execute them before he arrived. Healthcare responded that the arbitration provision was clearly labeled in bold print and capital letters and that Ms. Prieto declined to read the documents provided before signing them. They claim Ms. Prieto was never under force or duress to sign them immediately. Healthcare points to the fact that the

agreement provided a three-day period during which Ms. Prieto had the opportunity to review the documents at home and rescind them if they did not meet with her approval. concluded that the combined procedural The trial court and substantive

unconscionability in the case did not rise to a level sufficient enough to invalidate the arbitration agreement. motion for enforcement and stay was granted. Therefore, the

3

A trial court's construction of an arbitration provision is reviewable de novo. Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 Where a contract is found to

So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

be unconscionable, a trial court may properly decline to enforce it. 1999). courts Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA In determining both the issue of unconscionability, and substantive most

consider

its

procedural

aspects.

E.g. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Petsch, 872 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Romano v. Manor Care, Inc., 871 So. 2d. 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Gainesville Health Care Center, Inc. v. Weston, 857 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). the circumstances surrounding The procedural component involves the entering of the contract;

thus, the court focuses on whether the parties had a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract and had a meaningful choice in accepting it. Substantive

unconscionability, on the other hand, concerns the actual terms of the contract, and the court must determine whether they are so outrageously unfair as to shock the judicial conscience.

Weston, 857 So. 2d at 284-85. In the instant case, the trial court properly considered and found both procedural and substantive unconscionability but, nevertheless, enforceable. concluded that the arbitration agreement was

We disagree.

As the court found under strikingly

4

similar

circumstances

in

Romano,

we

also

find

sufficient

irregularity in the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract amounting to some degree of procedural

unconscionability.

861 So. 2d at 64.

The arbitration agreement

was included in a package of numerous documents which Ms. Prieto was asked to sign in order to complete the admission process while her father was on route to the nursing home. the agreement were never explained to her. We also find that the limitations found in the arbitration agreement appreciably diminish the statutory rights granted The terms of

under Chapter 400 of the Florida Statutes. stated:

As the Romano court

"Sections 400.022 and 400.023 are remedial statutes, designed to protect nursing home residents. The Nursing Home Resident's Rights Act, section 400.022, was originally enacted after a Dade County Grand Jury investigation of nursing homes revealed substantial elder abuse occurring in many nursing homes without any remedial action being taken. [Citation omitted.] The law set up rights of residents, including the right to appropriate medical care, and requires nursing homes to make public statements of the rights and See

Download 03-3244 PRIETO V. HEALTHCARE.pdf