The Court of Appeals of Arkansas found that an arbitration agreement that did not include the name of the nursing home resident was unenforceable because it did not identify the contractual parties. The court rejected the nursing home’s argument that the resident should be deemed identified in the arbitration agreement because she was identified in the admission agreement. Robinson Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. v. Grant, No. CV-24-843 (Ark. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2026).
In 2007, Mary Etta Walker executed a durable power of attorney authorizing her son, Rick Grant, to make decisions regarding all matters related to her healthcare and admission to or discharge from a nursing home or other facility and to execute related documents. In 2019, Mary was admitted to Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Robinson Nursing). Rick signed the admission agreement and an arbitration agreement that was part of the admission agreement. The execution of the arbitration agreement was a condition to Mary’s admission. The admission agreement identified Mary as the resident. However, in the arbitration agreement, the line for the “undersigned resident” was blank, and Mary’s name did not appear elsewhere. Robinson Nursing & Rehab. Ctr. v. Grant, No. CV-24-843, at 3 (Feb. 11, 2026). Rick signed the arbitration agreement as the responsible party and stated that his relationship to the resident was “Son/POA.” Id. The arbitration agreement provided that it was entered into “in conjunction with the Admission Agreement and operates as part therof [sic].” Id. at 7. Mary resided at Robinson Nursing until her death in May 2021.
As Mary’s personal representative, Rick filed a lawsuit against Robinson Nursing alleging negligence and medical negligence. The complaint alleged that, while Mary resided at Robinson Nursing, she had suffered from injuries due to falls, dehydration, and severe weight loss, which led to her death. Robinson Nursing denied the allegations and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it did not identify Mary, and it was unclear whether Rick had signed as Mary’s son or as her attorney-in-fact; and Rick lacked the authority under the healthcare power of attorney to enter into the arbitration agreement. Robinson Nursing appealed the trial court’s order.
The Court of Appeals for Arkansas noted that whether a dispute should be submitted to arbitration was a matter of contract construction. Therefore, the court must look at the language of the contract containing an agreement to arbitrate and effectuate the intent of the parties as evidenced by the arbitration agreement, construing the contract against the drafter. In holding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it failed to identify Mary as the resident, the court relied upon a prior case with similar facts, Lakeside Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., Inc. v. Rufkahr, 572 S.W.3d 461 (Ark. App. 2019). In Lakeside Nursing, the court held that an admission agreement that named the resident could not satisfy the missing party in the arbitration agreement because the admission agreement was not incorporated into the arbitration agreement. The admission agreement in the present case was also not incorporated into the arbitration agreement. Further, the court ruled that Robinson Nursing’s contention that the admission agreement and arbitration agreement should be considered together presupposed that both agreements had been validly executed on Mary’s behalf; however, because Mary’s name did not appear in the arbitration agreement, it had not been validly executed on her behalf.
The court found that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It declined to address whether Rick had acted as Mary’s attorney-in-fact rather than as her son in signing the arbitration agreement or his authority to sign it on her behalf.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
