Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Charles Adams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Mississippi
DecidedJanuary 18, 2022
Docket2020-CA-00882-COA
StatusPublished

This text of Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Charles Adams (Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Charles Adams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Mississippi primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Charles Adams, (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2020-CA-00882-COA

MANHATTAN NURSING AND APPELLANT REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC

v.

BARBARA HOLLINSHED, INDIVIDUALLY APPELLEE AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES ADAMS, DECEASED

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/22/2020 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. WINSTON L. KIDD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: CAROLINE CAMPBELL LOVELESS W. DAVIS FRYE GEORGE CLANTON GUNN IV ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JOHN F. HAWKINS RAFAEL RAMON GREEN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - CONTRACT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED - 01/18/2022 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE WILSON, P.J., GREENLEE AND EMFINGER, JJ.

EMFINGER, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. On October 6, 2017, Charles Adams filed a complaint against Manhattan Nursing and

Rehabilitation Center LLC (Manhattan), Medserve P.A., Todd Fulcher, M.D., and John and

Jane Does I-X in Hinds County Circuit Court, alleging negligence while he was a resident

at Manhattan. Shortly thereafter, Manhattan filed a motion to compel arbitration on February

7, 2018. A hearing on Manhattan’s motion took place on June 25, 2018. Over two years

later, on July 22, 2020, the circuit court entered an order wherein Manhattan’s motion to compel arbitration was denied. More specifically, the circuit court held that Bridget Coleman

did not have the authority to sign the arbitration agreement on Adams’ behalf. Further, the

court held that Adams lacked the capacity to sign the arbitration agreement on December 15,

2014, and, therefore, the arbitration agreement was not enforceable. On August 12, 2020,

Manhattan filed a petition requesting an interlocutory appeal of the order denying the motion

to compel arbitration. The Mississippi Supreme Court entered an order accepting

Manhattan’s petition for filing as a notice of appeal on September 30, 2020.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. Just prior to being admitted to Manhattan, Adams was a patient at the University of

Mississippi Medical Center (UMC). Adams was admitted to UMC on November 26, 2014,

and discharged on December 1, 2014. Adams was discharged with orders to continue taking

a sizeable list of medications including diazepam (Valium) and hydrocodone-acetaminophen

(Norco). Shortly after his discharge from UMC, on December 8, 2014, Adams’ “significant

other,” Bridget Coleman, completed and executed a series of documents to facilitate Adams’

admission to Manhattan.1 One such document was a “Resident and Facility Arbitration

Agreement,” which is of primary importance in this appeal. While all of the other signatures

on the arbitration agreement, including Coleman’s and the admissions coordinator’s, were

dated December 8, 2014, Adams’ signature on the agreement was dated December 15, 2014.2

1 While the record includes multiple documents signed by Bridget Coleman, the actual admission agreement is not a part of the record on appeal. 2 The question of whether Adams actually signed the arbitration agreement was originally an issue argued at the trial court level; however, that claim was abandoned and not argued on appeal. Further, Manhattan is not contesting the portion of the circuit court’s

2 Adams became a Manhattan resident on December 9, 2014.

¶3. On October 6, 2017, Adams filed a complaint alleging negligence against Manhattan

and several other individuals and entities associated with Manhattan. On February 7, 2018,

in response to Adams’ complaint, Manhattan filed a motion to compel arbitration pursuant

to the arbitration agreement that Adams signed on December 15, 2014. Manhattan’s motion

was ultimately denied on the basis that Adams lacked the capacity to sign the agreement and

Coleman did not have the authority to sign the agreement on his behalf. Aggrieved by the

circuit court’s ruling, Manhattan appealed. In the pendency of litigation, Adams passed away

June 16, 2019. Adams’ daughter, Barbara Hollinshed, was substituted for Adams as the

plaintiff in this matter individually and on behalf of Adams’ estate.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶4. This Court reviews the factual findings in a trial court’s grant or denial of a motion

to compel arbitration under an abuse-of-discretion standard, and we conduct a de novo

review of all legal conclusions. Virgil v. Sw. Miss. Elec. Power Ass’n, 296 So. 3d 53, 59

(¶11) (Miss. 2020) (citing Smith v. Express Check Advance of Miss. LLC, 153 So. 3d 601,

605-06 (¶8) (Miss. 2014)).

ANALYSIS

¶5. Manhattan argues that the circuit court erred in denying its motion to compel

arbitration. It claims that the arbitration agreement is valid because Adams possessed the

ruling that Coleman lacked authority to execute the arbitration agreement on Adams’ behalf. It asserts that Coleman’s authority or lack of authority is irrelevant because Adams himself signed the agreement.

3 requisite mental capacity to execute the agreement. It further asserts that the parties’ dispute

is within the scope of the arbitration agreement and that there are no legal constraints

external to the parties’ agreement that foreclose the arbitration of Adams’ claims. Adams’

competency at the time that he executed the arbitration agreement is an essential element of

Manhattan’s argument and must be proven in order for either of its remaining assertions to

hold merit.

¶6. “The law presumes a person sane and mentally capable to enter into a contract. . . .

The burden is upon the party seeking to avoid an instrument on the ground of insanity or

mental incapacity to establish it by a preponderance of proof.” Frierson v. Delta Outdoor

Inc., 794 So. 2d 220, 224 (¶8) (Miss. 2001) (citing Foster v. Wright, 240 Miss. 566, 572, 127

So. 2d 873, 876 (1961)); see also Liberty Health & Rehab. of Indianola LLC v. Howarth, 11

F. Supp. 3d 684 (N.D. Miss. 2014). In determining mental competency, the Mississippi

Supreme Court has established a test wherein an individual must be able to “know or

understand his legal rights sufficiently well to manage his personal affairs” to be considered

competent. Est. of St. Martin v. Hixson, 145 So. 3d 1124, 1131 (¶16) (Miss. 2014) (quoting

Rockwell v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co., 710 So. 2d 388, 391 (¶9) (Miss. 1998)). In this

case Adams’ counsel had the burden of proving that Adams lacked the mental capacity to

execute the arbitration agreement on December 15, 2014, to invalidate the agreement. The

circuit court in this case had only the arguments of counsel and the attachments to the

motion, response, and reply pleadings to rely on in making its decision to deny Manhattan’s

motion to compel arbitration.

4 ¶7. Adams’ medical records from UMC from the dates immediately prior to his admission

to Manhattan were attached to his response to the motion to compel as Exhibit A. Upon

admission to UMC, the records indicate that Adams had an “altered mental status.” The

records went on to state that the “etiology” of his “active problems” was unclear; however,

“possibly partial treatment of UTI (although UA negative for infection), more likely

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Foster v. Wright
127 So. 2d 873 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1961)
Rockwell v. Preferred Risk Mut. Ins. Co.
710 So. 2d 388 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1998)
Frierson v. Delta Outdoor, Inc.
794 So. 2d 220 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001)
Lacie Cyless Smith v. Express Check Advance of Mississippi, LLC
153 So. 3d 601 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2014)
Estate of St. Martin v. Hixson
145 So. 3d 1124 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2014)
Liberty Health & Rehab of Indianola, LLC v. Howarth
11 F. Supp. 3d 684 (N.D. Mississippi, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Barbara Hollinshed, Individually and On Behalf of the Estate of Charles Adams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manhattan-nursing-and-rehabilitation-center-llc-v-barbara-hollinshed-missctapp-2022.