Prickett v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Prickett v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc.

986 S.W.2d 947, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1695, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 1999 WL 156165

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

DocketNo. 22516

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 986 S.W.2d 947 (Prickett v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Prickett v. Lucy Lee Hospital, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 947, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1695, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 1999 WL 156165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

JAMES K. PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff filed a petition to rescind an employment contract and for damages, asserting that material false representations were made by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion that sought to stay the civil action and compel the submission of Respondent’s claims to arbitration. Defendant appeals an Order denying its motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. This Order is an appealable order under Section 435.440.1(1), RSMo 1994.¹

Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying its motion because “Defendant and Plaintiff are parties to a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate.” Plaintiff had signed an Employee Acknowledgment Form that acknowledged receipt of the “Tenet” Employee Handbook. Two paragraphs with[948]*948in that one-page form address an agreement to arbitrate. In part, the form reads:

I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Tenet Fair Treatment Process brochure. I hereby voluntarily agree to use the Company’s Fair Treatment Process and to submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes that are related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment with Tenet.

Defendant is not named in the Acknowledgment Form. In its brief, Defendant states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tenet Healthcare System. Whether it is a wholly-owned subsidiary does not change the result here. Plaintiff argues, and we agree, that there is no agreement to arbitrate between himself and Defendant, thus Plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate the dispute between them.

An agreement to arbitrate a dispute is a contract. Thatcher Implement & Mercantile Co. v. Brubaker, 187 S.W. 117, 120, 193 Mo.App. 627 (1916). Only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms. Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown v. Rahm, 963 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Mo.App.1998). Conversely, one not a party to a contract cannot enforce the contractual terms upon one of the parties to the contract. See Kahn v. Prahl, 414 S.W.2d 269, 277-78 (Mo.1967). The evidence in this case does not establish that Defendant and Plaintiff were parties to a contract requiring arbitration.

The trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion is affirmed.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

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

JAMES K. PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff filed a petition to rescind an employment contract and for damages, asserting that material false representations were made by Defendant. Defendant filed a motion that sought to stay the civil action and compel the submission of Respondent’s claims to arbitration. Defendant appeals an Order denying its motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. This Order is an appealable order under Section 435.440.1(1), RSMo 1994.¹

Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying its motion because “Defendant and Plaintiff are parties to a valid, enforceable agreement to arbitrate.” Plaintiff had signed an Employee Acknowledgment Form that acknowledged receipt of the “Tenet” Employee Handbook. Two paragraphs with[948]*948in that one-page form address an agreement to arbitrate. In part, the form reads:

I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Tenet Fair Treatment Process brochure. I hereby voluntarily agree to use the Company’s Fair Treatment Process and to submit to final and binding arbitration any and all claims and disputes that are related in any way to my employment or the termination of my employment with Tenet.

Defendant is not named in the Acknowledgment Form. In its brief, Defendant states that it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Tenet Healthcare System. Whether it is a wholly-owned subsidiary does not change the result here. Plaintiff argues, and we agree, that there is no agreement to arbitrate between himself and Defendant, thus Plaintiff cannot be compelled to arbitrate the dispute between them.

An agreement to arbitrate a dispute is a contract. Thatcher Implement & Mercantile Co. v. Brubaker, 187 S.W. 117, 120, 193 Mo.App. 627 (1916). Only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms. Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown v. Rahm, 963 S.W.2d 419, 422 (Mo.App.1998). Conversely, one not a party to a contract cannot enforce the contractual terms upon one of the parties to the contract. See Kahn v. Prahl, 414 S.W.2d 269, 277-78 (Mo.1967). The evidence in this case does not establish that Defendant and Plaintiff were parties to a contract requiring arbitration.

The trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion is affirmed.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 S.W.2d 947, 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1695, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 1999 WL 156165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prickett-v-lucy-lee-hospital-inc-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack