IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
NORTHPORT HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC D/B/A WEST MELBOURNE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-335
ROSIETTE LOUIS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELIENNE PHILISTIN,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 2, 2018
Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles J. Roberts, Judge.
Lissette M. Gonzalez and Scott A. Cole, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Douglas F. Eaton, of Eaton & Wolk, PL, Miami, for Appellee.
LAMBERT, J.
Northport Health Services of Florida, LLC d/b/a West Melbourne Health and
Rehabilitation Center (“Northport”) appeals a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration.1 The trial court found the parties’ arbitration agreement to be “vague,
confusing and conflicting” and that it was unenforceable for being void as against public
policy because it limited the ability of the Appellee, Rosiette Louis, as personal
representative of the Estate of Elienne Philistin (“Estate”) to recover damages and
increased her evidentiary burden of proof. We reverse and remand to the trial court to
sever the provision in the arbitration agreement that requires the application of Alabama
law to the admissibility of evidence at the arbitration hearing.
Elienne Philistin was admitted to the West Melbourne Health and Rehabilitation
Center on August 7, 2015, and resided there until she died on September 25, 2015. On
the date of her admission, Philistin's daughter, Rosiette Louis, with power of attorney on
behalf of her mother, executed an admission agreement 2 that contained the arbitration
agreement before the court in which the parties agreed to resolve any disputes between
them by binding arbitration and specifically waived the right to have any dispute resolved
in a court of law before a judge or jury.
Estate filed suit against Northport alleging that Northport's failure to comply with its
statutory duties under the Florida Nursing Home Resident’s Rights Act3 (“Act”) was the
proximate cause of Philistin's wrongful death. Northport moved to compel arbitration.
Estate responded by asserting that the agreement to arbitrate was void and
unenforceable for two reasons. First, while acknowledging that the agreement expressly
1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
2Neither party disputes the validity of the power of attorney or that Louis properly exercised her authority on behalf of her mother.
3 The Act is codified at sections 400.022–.0238, Florida Statutes.
2 required the arbitrator to apply Florida’s substantive law, its law of remedies,4 and the
evidentiary burden of proof applicable in Florida in these types of cases, Estate
nevertheless contended that a separate provision contained in paragraph 8 of the
arbitration agreement, stating that the admissibility of evidence at the arbitration hearing
shall be determined in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Evidence, improperly
limited its ability to recover compensatory damages because only punitive damages are
recoverable in wrongful death claims in Alabama. See Ala. Power Co. v. Turner, 575 So.
2d 551 (Ala. 1991). Second, Estate argued that another provision within the same
paragraph required the application of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure to all pre-
hearing discovery, which Estate asserted improperly limited it to discovery of only those
negligent acts or omissions that it was able to identify at the outset of the lawsuit. The
trial court granted Estate’s motion, finding that the arbitration agreement violated public
policy and was void because it limits Estate's ability to recover all available damages and
also increased its evidentiary burden of proof. The court also ruled that these two
provisions in paragraph 8 of the arbitration agreement were not severable from the rest
of the agreement “because it will create more confusion among arbitrators regarding
applicable procedures and evidence rules.”
The standard of review of a trial court's order on a motion to compel arbitration is
de novo. See Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 44 So. 3d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA
2010). Additionally, “a] trial court's decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement
or provision is void as against public policy presents ‘a pure question of law, subject
4 The agreement requires the arbitrator to “apply the substantive law (and the law of remedies, if applicable) of the State in which the facility is located.” The facility is located in Florida.
3 to de novo review.’” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So. 3d 859, 862
(Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456, 471 (Fla.
2011)).
The public policy of the Florida Nursing Home Resident's Rights Act is to provide
rights for, and to protect, nursing home residents. Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 474. Under the
Act, a resident may recover actual and punitive damages for the violation of these rights
or for negligence, § 400.023(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016), and there are no caps for pain and
suffering damages. Here, while the arbitration agreement specifically provides that the
arbitrator apply Florida substantive law, including its law of remedies, which allow for an
award of both compensatory and punitive damages, the application of the Alabama Rules
of Evidence under the arbitration agreement may preclude Estate from presenting
evidence at the arbitration hearing as to its compensatory damages, contrary to the
remedial purpose of the Act.
Northport reminds the court that in Hancock v. Northport Health Services of
Florida, LLC, 150 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), we affirmed an order compelling
arbitration, determining that these identical arbitration provisions in the arbitration
agreement did not limit a resident’s available remedies under the Act and that no
convincing argument was made as to why the application of Alabama’s procedural rules
would be problematic. 150 So. 3d at 1263. Estate responds that Hancock is not
dispositive because the appellant there did not raise the specific argument being raised
here as to the unenforceability of the agreement. Northport alternatively asserts that the
arbitration agreement contains a severability clause providing that in the event any
provision of the agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of
4 the agreement “shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable in accordance
with its terms.”
A “contract is severable where . . . with the illegal portion eliminated, there still
remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by
valid legal promises on the other.” Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 475 (quoting Local No. 234 of
United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
NORTHPORT HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC D/B/A WEST MELBOURNE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D17-335
ROSIETTE LOUIS, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ELIENNE PHILISTIN,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 2, 2018
Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles J. Roberts, Judge.
Lissette M. Gonzalez and Scott A. Cole, of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., Miami, for Appellant.
Douglas F. Eaton, of Eaton & Wolk, PL, Miami, for Appellee.
LAMBERT, J.
Northport Health Services of Florida, LLC d/b/a West Melbourne Health and
Rehabilitation Center (“Northport”) appeals a non-final order denying its motion to compel arbitration.1 The trial court found the parties’ arbitration agreement to be “vague,
confusing and conflicting” and that it was unenforceable for being void as against public
policy because it limited the ability of the Appellee, Rosiette Louis, as personal
representative of the Estate of Elienne Philistin (“Estate”) to recover damages and
increased her evidentiary burden of proof. We reverse and remand to the trial court to
sever the provision in the arbitration agreement that requires the application of Alabama
law to the admissibility of evidence at the arbitration hearing.
Elienne Philistin was admitted to the West Melbourne Health and Rehabilitation
Center on August 7, 2015, and resided there until she died on September 25, 2015. On
the date of her admission, Philistin's daughter, Rosiette Louis, with power of attorney on
behalf of her mother, executed an admission agreement 2 that contained the arbitration
agreement before the court in which the parties agreed to resolve any disputes between
them by binding arbitration and specifically waived the right to have any dispute resolved
in a court of law before a judge or jury.
Estate filed suit against Northport alleging that Northport's failure to comply with its
statutory duties under the Florida Nursing Home Resident’s Rights Act3 (“Act”) was the
proximate cause of Philistin's wrongful death. Northport moved to compel arbitration.
Estate responded by asserting that the agreement to arbitrate was void and
unenforceable for two reasons. First, while acknowledging that the agreement expressly
1 We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
2Neither party disputes the validity of the power of attorney or that Louis properly exercised her authority on behalf of her mother.
3 The Act is codified at sections 400.022–.0238, Florida Statutes.
2 required the arbitrator to apply Florida’s substantive law, its law of remedies,4 and the
evidentiary burden of proof applicable in Florida in these types of cases, Estate
nevertheless contended that a separate provision contained in paragraph 8 of the
arbitration agreement, stating that the admissibility of evidence at the arbitration hearing
shall be determined in accordance with the Alabama Rules of Evidence, improperly
limited its ability to recover compensatory damages because only punitive damages are
recoverable in wrongful death claims in Alabama. See Ala. Power Co. v. Turner, 575 So.
2d 551 (Ala. 1991). Second, Estate argued that another provision within the same
paragraph required the application of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure to all pre-
hearing discovery, which Estate asserted improperly limited it to discovery of only those
negligent acts or omissions that it was able to identify at the outset of the lawsuit. The
trial court granted Estate’s motion, finding that the arbitration agreement violated public
policy and was void because it limits Estate's ability to recover all available damages and
also increased its evidentiary burden of proof. The court also ruled that these two
provisions in paragraph 8 of the arbitration agreement were not severable from the rest
of the agreement “because it will create more confusion among arbitrators regarding
applicable procedures and evidence rules.”
The standard of review of a trial court's order on a motion to compel arbitration is
de novo. See Laizure v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 44 So. 3d 1254, 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA
2010). Additionally, “a] trial court's decision regarding whether an arbitration agreement
or provision is void as against public policy presents ‘a pure question of law, subject
4 The agreement requires the arbitrator to “apply the substantive law (and the law of remedies, if applicable) of the State in which the facility is located.” The facility is located in Florida.
3 to de novo review.’” Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Estate of Vrastil, 118 So. 3d 859, 862
(Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (quoting Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So. 3d 456, 471 (Fla.
2011)).
The public policy of the Florida Nursing Home Resident's Rights Act is to provide
rights for, and to protect, nursing home residents. Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 474. Under the
Act, a resident may recover actual and punitive damages for the violation of these rights
or for negligence, § 400.023(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016), and there are no caps for pain and
suffering damages. Here, while the arbitration agreement specifically provides that the
arbitrator apply Florida substantive law, including its law of remedies, which allow for an
award of both compensatory and punitive damages, the application of the Alabama Rules
of Evidence under the arbitration agreement may preclude Estate from presenting
evidence at the arbitration hearing as to its compensatory damages, contrary to the
remedial purpose of the Act.
Northport reminds the court that in Hancock v. Northport Health Services of
Florida, LLC, 150 So. 3d 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014), we affirmed an order compelling
arbitration, determining that these identical arbitration provisions in the arbitration
agreement did not limit a resident’s available remedies under the Act and that no
convincing argument was made as to why the application of Alabama’s procedural rules
would be problematic. 150 So. 3d at 1263. Estate responds that Hancock is not
dispositive because the appellant there did not raise the specific argument being raised
here as to the unenforceability of the agreement. Northport alternatively asserts that the
arbitration agreement contains a severability clause providing that in the event any
provision of the agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of
4 the agreement “shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable in accordance
with its terms.”
A “contract is severable where . . . with the illegal portion eliminated, there still
remains of the contract valid legal promises on one side which are wholly supported by
valid legal promises on the other.” Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 475 (quoting Local No. 234 of
United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of Plumbing & Pipefitting Indus. of U.S. &
Can. v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So. 2d 818, 821-22 (Fla. 1953)). The dispositive
issue of whether a void clause or clauses invalidate the entire arbitration agreement is
whether the offending clause goes to “the very essence of the agreement.” Rockledge
NH, LLC v. Miley By & Through Miley, 219 So. 3d 246, 248 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting
Shotts, 86 So. 3d at 478).
Estate is correct that the appellant in Hancock did not raise the specific argument
being made here. Nevertheless, we conclude that the provision of the arbitration
agreement requiring application of the Alabama Rules of Evidence at the arbitration
hearing is severable because it concerns procedure and not the substantive law or
remedies under Florida law to which the parties specifically agreed. Thus, this provision
does not go to the “very essence” of the arbitration agreement. Lastly, we again hold, as
we did in Hancock, that no convincing argument has been raised as to why the application
of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure to the parties’ conduct of pre-hearing discovery
is problematic. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion to
compel arbitration.
5 REVERSED and REMANDED with directions that the trial court grant Northport’s
motion to compel and sever from the arbitration agreement the provision applying the
Alabama Rules of Evidence to the admissibility of evidence at the arbitration hearing.
COHEN, C.J. and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.