July 24, 2014

Crossman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc.

In Crossman v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., the North Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld the invalidation of a healthcare arbitration agreement as impossible to perform due to a failure of material terms.  In January 2011, while serving as the administrator of her husband’s estate, Lucille Crossman filed a wrongful death complaint against the Defendants, who own, operate, and manage the assisted living facility in Hendersonville in which Ms. Crossman’s husband resided before his death.  When Mr. Crossman entered the facility in 2004, he signed an agreement in which he stipulated that the parties agreed to submit all claims arising out of his care and treatment at the facility to binding arbitration.  The agreement also specified that such disputes would go before an arbitration hearing before a board of three arbitrators selected from the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) and that the arbitrators would apply the rules of the AAA.  Ms. Crossman did not sign the agreement.

When Ms. Crossman filed the wrongful death complaint, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration based on the terms of the arbitration agreement.  The trial court denied the motion, holding that the agreement was unenforceable because it was impossible to perform due to a failure in its material terms and because arbitration agreements signed by decedents do not bind wrongful death beneficiaries.

On appeal, the Court agreed that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable.  The Court explained that effective January 1, 2003, the AAA had issued a Healthcare Policy Statement informing all potential parties to an arbitration agreement in the field of healthcare that the AAA would no longer accept the arbitration of cases involving individual patients without a post-dispute agreement to arbitrate.  Because the agreement had been signed before a dispute arose, and because the agreement stipulated that arbitration must occur under AAA rules and be presided over by persons approved by the AAA, the Court held that the agreement was unenforceable because it was impossible to perform due to a failure in material terms.

The Court distinguished the case from its earlier holding in Westmoreland v. High Point Healthcare Inc., ___ N.C. App. ___, 721 S.E.2d 712 (2012), in which the Court held that a pre-dispute arbitration agreement signed on admittance to a nursing facility was enforceable.  In that case, the agreement stipulated that any arbitration must follow the rules of the AAA and be conducted before one neutral arbitrator selected in accordance with the rules of the AAA.  The Court held that the agreement was not impossible to perform despite the existence of the AAA Policy Statement, because it did not preclude arbitration of the claims by a non-AAA arbitrator.  Here, in contrast, the agreement stated that the arbitration would be conducted by arbitrators selected from the AAA.  It specifically required the use of AAA arbitrators and was, therefore, unenforceable as impossible to perform. 

Interestingly, the Court declined to reach the second question posed by the appeal: whether Ms. Crossman, as a beneficiary of Mr. Crossman’s estate, would be bound by her husband's assent to the arbitration agreement.  That question remains for another day. . .

Copyright © 2014 Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Carolyn C Pratt, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Employment Litigation Attorney
Attorney at Law

Carolyn Pratt represents employers in employment litigation as well as counsels them with respect to compliance issues with employment laws and regulations.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.