I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - CA- 0 0 4 2 7 - S CT M AGNO LI

A H EALTH CAR E, I

NC . d / b / a ARNOLD AV EN UE NUR S

I NG HOME; FO UNDA T ION HEA L T H S ER VICES

, I NC . AN D DI AN E OL T RE M AR I , AD M I NI S T RA TOR
v. BA RBARA J

EA N BAR NES

, BY AN D T HROU GH HER RELA TI VE AND NEXT F RI END, S HI RLE Y GR IGSBY

, AS CON

SERVATO R O F TH

E ESTATE OF BARBA RA J

EAN BARNES
ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 02/ 07/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RI CH AR D A
. SM I TH COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W ASHI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : P AT RI CI A J
. KE NNE DY M I CH AE L A. HE I L M AN CH RI S T OP HE R T HOMAS GR AHAM ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE ES : GEORGE F
. HOLLOW EL L, J R. NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 08/ 07/ 2008 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 02/ 19/ 2008 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: E N B A N C . RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he M ot i on f

or R ehea r i ng f

i l ed on behal f of B arbar a J ean B arnes by and thr ough her
re lativ e a n d n e x t frie n d S h irley G rig sb y , as c o n se rv a to r o f h e r e sta te , i s gr ant ed. T he pr evi ous
o p in io n s a re w ith d ra w n a n d th e s e o p in io n s s u b s titu te d th e re fo r.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. T h e fac ts a re u n d isp u ted tha t B a rb a ra Je a n B a rn e s (“ B a rn e s” ) is an in c o m p e ten t a d u lt
w i th the m ental capac i ty o f a three -year ol d an d is i ncap able of res i ding al on e. F or years, B arnes w as car ed f

orby hergr andmot her , buther grand m other ’ s age f i nal l y r equi r ed
s om eone e l s e t o ass um e thi s t as k. B arnes ’ s gra ndm otherconvi nced Barnes ’ s cous i n, A tw ood G rig sb y , to c a re fo r B a rn e s, a n d h e b e c a m e B a rn e s’s p rim a ry c a re g iv e r. B a rn e s re sid e d w ith A tw o o d an d h is w if

e u n ti l A tw o o d be ca m e il l. A tw o o d ’s w if e, S h ir ley G ri g b sy (“G ri g sb y ”),
w a s u n a b le to c a re fo r b o th A tw o o d a n d B a rn e s a n d a rra n g e d fo r B a rn e s’s a d m iss io n in to M agnol i a H eal thcar e, I nc. d/b/ a A rnol d A venue N ur s i ng H om e, and s i gned an admi s s i on
a g re e m e n t w ith a n a rb itr a tio n c la u s e o n F e b ru a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 3
. ¶3. O n Sept ember12, 2005, G r i gsby , acti ng as the nextf r i end and c ons ervat orof the E s t at e of B arnes , f i l ed s ui ti n W a s hi ng t on County Ci r c ui tCourtagai ns tM agnol i a H eal thcar e, I nc. , A rnol d A venue N ur s i ng H om e, Foundat i on H eal th Ser vi ces , I nc. , and A dm i ni s tr at or D i ane O l tr emar i ( col l ect i vel y r ef err ed t o as "M agnol i a" ) , al l egi ng thaton J anuary 15, 2005, and J une 17, 2005, Bar nes w as s exual l y a s s aul t ed w hi l e r es i di ng a tA rnol d A venue N ur s i ng H om e. M agnol i a f

i l ed a mot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on, r el yi ng upon the admi s s i on agr eement
s ig n e d b y G ri g s b y . ¶4. Fol l ow i ng a hear i ng, t he tr i al court deni ed M agnol i a' s m ot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on and hel d that , “G r i gs by di d notpos s es s agenc y author i ty t o bi nd B arnes n or di d G r i gs by p o ss e ss a n y s tatu to ry a u th o rity to s o b in d .” M a g n o lia n o w a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt, fra m in g its
a p p e a l o n a s in g u la r i s s u e , i.e ., w hethera s urr ogat e has the author i ty underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed 41- 41- 201, et . s eq. ( R ev. 2005) , t o exec ut e a nur s i ng hom e admi s s i ons agr eement

### 3

w h ich c o n tain s a n a rb itratio n p ro v isio n . G rig sb y c o u n ter s th a t th e c irc u it c o u rt d id n o t er r in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to c o m p e l arb itratio n , arg u in g th a t th e re w a s n o v a lid a g re e m e n t to
a rb itr a te . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 5
. T h is C o u rt ap p lies a d e n o v o sta n d a rd o f re v iew to d e n ia ls o f m o tio n s to c o m p e l. Co v e n a n t H

e a lth R e h a b o

f P ic a y u n e, L .P. v . B r o w n , 949 So. 2d 732, 736 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng Vi c ks bur

g Par tne rs, L. P. v. Ste

phe ns , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 3 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ))
. A N A L Y S IS ¶6
. I n det er m i ni ng t he val i di t y of a m ot i on t o c ompe l a rbi tr a t i on un de rthe Fe de r al A rbi tr at i on A ct , court s gener al l y conducta t w o- pr onged i nqui ry. “U nderthe f i r s tpr ong, the
c ou r ts ho ul d d e t e r mi ne w he the rthe pa r t i e s ha ve a gr e e d t o a rbi tr a t e the di s put e. ” R og ersD a b b s Ch e v r o le t-Hu m m e r , I n c . v. B la k e n e

y, 950 So. 2d 170, 173 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng E ast Fo r d , I n c . v. T a y lo r , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 ( M i s s . 2 0 0 2 ) )
. “ T h e f i r s tp r o n g h a s two
con si derat i on s: (1) w hetherther e is a vali d arbi trat i on agreem ent and (2) w hetherthe p art i es’ di s put e i s w i thi n the s cope of the arbi tr at i on agr eement . ” T aylor , 826 So. 2d at713. Fi ndi ng th e re is n o v a lid a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t, o u r a n a ly s is w ill b e s h o rts h ri ft
. ¶7. T he arbi trat i on provis i on i n the Feb ruary 1 9, 20 03 , adm i ssi on agreem ent pr ov i des: It is u n d e rsto o d a n d a g re e d b y th e F a c ili ty a n d R e sid e n t an d /o r R e sp o n sib le Par ty thatany l egal di s pu t e , c on tr ov er s y, demand orcl ai m ( her ei naf t err ef err ed t o as “cl ai m ” o r “c l ai m s ”) thatar i s es outof orr el at es t o the A dm i s s i on A gr eementorany s ervi ce orheal th car e pr ovi ded by the Faci l i ty t o the R es i dent , s hal l be r es ol ved exc l us i vel y by bi ndi ng arbi tr at i on. . . i n acc or dance w i th the A m er i can H eal th L aw yer s A s s oci at i on A l t e rna t i ve D i s put e R es ol ut i on S e rv ice R u les o f P ro c e d u re fo r A rb itratio n , w h ich a re h e re b y in c o rp o ra ted in to th is a g re e m e n t*
. . . .

### 4

* In fo rm a tio n r e g a rd in g A H L A a n d /o r its a rb itratio n se rv ice s a n d ru les is avai l abl e at : A m er i can H eal th L aw yers A ssoci at i on , 1025 C onnect i cutA venue N W , Sui t e 600, W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20036- 56405, Phone: ( 202) 833- 1100/Fax: (20 2 ) 83 3 -11 0 5 , w w w . h ea lth law y ers.org o r A m erican H e a lth L aw y ers A s s oci a t i on A l t ernat i ve D i s put e R es ol ut i on Servi ce, 1666 C onnect i cutA venue N W , W as hi ngt on, D C 20009, Phone ( 202)
- 387- 4176/ Fax ( 202) 478- 5155, em a il: adr @ heal thl aw yer s . or g. ¶ 8
. A m e ric a n H e a lth L a w y e rs A ss o c iatio n A ltern a tiv e D isp u te R e so lu tio n S e rv ice R u le
o f P ro c e d u re 1 .0 1 © 1 9 9 1 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ) re v e a ls th e fo llo w in g : A pp l i cabil i ty o f R ules : T h e p a rties sh a ll b e b o u n d b y th e se R u les w h e n e v e r th e y h a v e a g re e d in w riting to a rb itr a tio n b y th e S e rv ice o r u n d e r th e R u les . T h e S e rv ice w ill admi ni s t era “cons um erheal th car e l i abi l i ty cl ai m ” underthe R ul es on oraf t er J anuary 1, 2004 onl

y i f al lof the part i es have agre ed i n w r i t i ng t o arbi tr at e the clai m af t erthe i nj ur

y has occurr ed and a copy of the agr eem ent

is r ece i ved by the Ser vi ce atthe t i m e the part i es m ake a reque s tf ora l i s tof

arbi tr at or s . For p u rp o se s o f th e R u les , a “c o n su m e r h e a lth ca re li a b ili ty cla im ” m e a n s a c laim in w h ich a cu rren t or form er p ati en t or a c u rren t or fo rm er p ati en t’ s r epr es ent at i ve ( i ncl udi ng hi s orheres t at e orf ami l y) al l eges t hatan i nj ury w as caus ed by the provi s i on of ( orthe f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de) heal th car e s ervi ces or m ed ical pro d u cts b y a h ea lth ca re p rov ider o r th e m an u fac turer, distri b u tor, s u p p lie r, o r s e lle r o f a m e d ic a l p ro d u c t. (E m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶9. A r evi ew of t he com pl ai nt r evea l s cons um er heal th car e l i abi l i ty cl ai m s dat ed af t er J anuary 1, 2004. T he compl ai nts eeks r em edy for i nj ur i es occurr i ng f i r s ton J anuary 15, 2005, and then on J une 17, 2005. ¶10
. Itis u n d ispu ted that the p art i es di d n ot agr ee t o arbi trat e the clai m aft er the i njury
occurr ed, as r equi red by the rul es w hi ch w er e i ncorpor at ed i nt o the admi s s i ons agr eement atthe behe s tof

M agnol i a. “The U
. S. Supr eme C our thas s t at ed that , ‘ arbi tr at i on i s a m att er of contr actand a pa r ty cannotbe r equi r ed t o s ubm i tt o a rbi tr at i on any di s put e w hi ch he ha s

### 5

notagr eed t o s ubm i t . ’ ” B .C . R og e rs P o u ltry, In c . v. W e d g e w o rth , 911 So. 2d 483, 487- 88 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng A T&T T e c h s . , I n c . v. Co mmc ’n s . Wo rk e rs o f A m. , 475 U
. S. 643, 648, 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 4 1 5 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 4 8 (1 9 8 6 ))
. ¶ 1 1
. F in d in g tha t no ag re e m e n t t o arb itrate w a s e n ter e d into afte r Ja n u a ry 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 , fo r th is C our tt o r evi ew , the i nes capabl e conc l us i on i s t hatt her e w as no val i d agr eementt o arbi tr at e. ¶1 2. “W hi l e t he c i r c ui tc ou r tba s e d i t s de c i s i on t o d e ny a rbi tr a t i on on r e a s on s di f f e r ent fro m o u rs, w e m a y o n a p p e a l af firm th e d e c isio n o f th e trial c o u rt w h e re th e rig h t re su lt i s
re a c h e d , e v e n th o u g h w e m a y d is a g re e w ith th e tr ia l c o u rt ' s re a s o n s fo r r e a c h in g th a t r e s u lt.” P as s Ter m ite & P es t

Contr ol , I nc. v. W al ker , 904 So. 2d 1030, 1032 ( M i s s . 2004) ( ci t at i on
om i t t ed)
. A ccor di ngl y, w e af f i r m the tr i al court ’ s deni al of the m ot i on t o c om pel arbi tr at i on. ¶13. AF F I RM ED . S M I T H , C .J ., A N D C A R L S O N , C O N C U R . D I A Z , P .J ., A N D L A M A R , J ., C O N C U R IN R E S U L T O N L Y . W A L L E R , P . J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN RE S UL T . DI CK I NS ON , J . , C ON CU RS W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N OP I NI ON J OI NED BY W ALLER, P. J . , AND LAM AR, J . GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OPI NI ON J OI NE D BY DI AZ , P. J . EA S LE Y, J . , DI S S EN TS W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.
DI CK I NS ON , J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶14. I concur i n af

f i r m i ng the tr i al count ’ s j udgm ent but f or a di f f er ent r eas on. I concl ude t ha tSh i r l e y G r i gs by h a d no a utho r i ty, a s a s urr og a t e o ro the rw i s e , t o bi nd Barne s t o an
a g re e m e n t to a rb itr a te . ¶15. R el yi ng on M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 41- 41- 201 et s eq , ( R ev. 2005) as the l egal b asi s f

ors endi ng B arbar a B arnes t o arbi tr at i on, the def endantar gues thatShi r l ey G rig sb y sig n e d th e a g re e m e n t a s B a rn e s’s h e a lth c a re su rro g a te. T h e d e fe n d a n t fa ils to

### 6

ex p lai n h o w o n e ca n serv e as a st atuto ry h ea lth ca re su rrog ate w ith o u t f u lf il li n g the s tatu tory
r equi r ement s . Forone t o s erve as a s t atut ory heal thcar e s urr ogat e, t he st atut e r equi r es that a pat i ent ’ s “pr i m ary phys i ci an” de t erm i ne w hetherthe pat i entl acks c apac i ty t o m ake he al thcare deci si on s. T his cl ear, un equ i vo cal , st atutory requi rem ent i s no tm etin t his case. T hu s, i n m y vi ew , w e s houl d de ci de thi s c as e w i thoutr eac hi ng a ny a gr eements i gned by G r i gs by. W AL L E R, P . J . , AN D L AMAR , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON
. GR AVES, J UST I CE, CO NCU RRI NG I N RESULT ONLY : ¶16. W hi l e I agr ee w i th the af f i r m ance of

the tr i al c our t ’ s de ni al of the m ot i on t o compel arb itrat i on , I r each thatres ultfora dif fer ent r eason. Th e tri al cou rtden i ed M ag n o li a’s
m ot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on , fi nd i ng thatG r i gs by di d notpos s es s the s t atut ory oragenc y author i ty t o bi nd B arnes t o t he arbi tr at i on provi s i on w i thi n the admi s s i on agr eement . I agr ee
w ith th e re a s o n in g o f t h e tr ia l c o u rt , a n d th e re fo re c o n c u r i n a ff ir m in g its d e c is io n . ¶17
. A ssum i ng arguen do that G ri gsby w as act i ng on beh al f of B arnes i n her capac i ty as a heal th- car e s urr ogat e, as def i ned i n the U ni f

or m H eal th- C ar e D eci s i ons A ct , i ti s c l earf r om a pl ai n- m eani ng i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e thata hea l th- car e s urr ogat e i s author i zed t o bi nd a pat i entt o heal th- car e dec i si on s onl y w hi l e ac t i ng i n thatcapa ci ty. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nn otat ed S ect i on 41 -41-211 (6) provides:

(6) A surr ogat e s hal l m ake a heal th- car e dec is i on in a c c o rd a n c e w ith the pat i ent ’ s i ndi vi dual i ns truct i ons , i f a ny, a nd otherw i s hes t o the ex t ent k n o w n to th e su rro g a te. O th e rw ise , the su rro g a te s h a ll m a k e th e d e c isio n in ac co rda n ce w ith the su rrog ate’s d eterm ination o f the p ati en t’ s b est interest. In d ete rm in in g th e p a tien t’s b e st in ter e st, th e su rro g a te s h all co n side r th e p ati en t’ s per s onal val ues t o the ext entknow n t o the s urr ogat e.

. . .

### 7

M iss . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -4 1 -2 1 1 (6 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e L e g isla tu re sp e c ifica lly def i ned “he al th- car e dec i s i on” i n M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 41-41- 203( h) , w hi ch p ro v id e s: ( h) “H eal t h-car e dec i s i on” means a dec i s i on m ade by a n i ndi vi dual orthe in d iv id u a l’s a g e n t, gu a rd ian , o r su rro g a te, re g a rd in g th e in d iv id u a l’s h e a lth car e, i ncl udi ng: (i ) Sel ect i on and dis charge o f heal th-car e providers and i nst i tuti on s; ( i i ) Ap p r o v a l o rd i s a p p r o v a l o f d i a g n o s t i c t e s t s , s u r g i c a l p r o c e d u r e s , p r o g r a ms of m edi cat i on, and or der s notr es us ci t at e; and ( i i i ) D i r ect i ons t o p rovi de, w i thhol d orw i thdr aw art i f i ci al nutr i t i on and hydr at i on and al l otherf or m s of heal th car e. T he phr as e “he al th- car e deci s i on” does noti ncl ude deci s i ons m ade pur s uant t o Sect i ons 41- 39- 31 thr ough 41- 39- 51, the “A nat om i cal G i f tL aw . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -41 -20 3 (h) (R ev . 2 0 0 5 ). ¶1 8
. W h e n in ter p re tin g a st atute, this C o u rtm u st fi rstde term ine w h ethe r th e sta tu te is
a m b ig u o u s . H

a rr iso n v. S ta te , 8 0 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 4 , 1 1 3 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ). “ W h e n a sta tu te is
un am biguou s, this C ou rtapp l i es the p l ai n m eaning o f the st atu te a n d refrai ns fr om the u se of s t atut ory cons truct i on pr i nci pal s [ s i c]
. ” G il m erv. State, 955 So. 2d 829, 833 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng P in k to n v. S ta te , 4 8 1 S o .2 d 3 0 6 , 3 0 9 (M iss . 1 9 9 5 )). W h e n th e m e a n in g o f a sta tu te i s c l ear , thi s Courtmay notenl ar ge orr es tr i ctthe s t atut e. G il m er , 955 So. 2d at834 ( ci t i ng S ta te v. T

r a y lo r , 1 0 0 M is s . 5 4 4 , 5 5 8 -5 9 , 5 6 S o . 5 2 1 (1 9 1 1 ). ¶19
. M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on s 41-41-21 1 an d 4 1-41-20 3(h) ar e un am biguou s. T he L egis l ature cl earl y an d speci fi cal l y defi ned “h eal th-car e d eci si on , ” being caref ul t o li st sp e c ific in sta n c e s w h ich q u a lify as “h e a lth -c a re d e c isio n [s]” th a t a h e a lth -c a re su rro g a te is aut ho r i z e d t o make o n be ha l f o f the p a t i e nt . N othi ng wi thi n the s t a tut e woul d i nd i cat e t he

### 8

L egi s l atur e’ s i nt entt o al l ow a hea l th- car e s urr ogat e t o ent eri nt o contr act s w hi ch ar e not
s tr i ct l y r el at ed t o heal th- car e dec i s i ons . T he dec i s i on t o s ubm i tt o arbi tr at i on i s nota heal thc a re d e c is io n . See Mar inerHeal thcar e, I nc. v. G r een , 2 0 0 6 U. S
. Di s t . L E XI S 3 7 4 7 9 ( N. D. M iss . Ju n e 7 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( su rro g a te’ s a u th o rity to m a k e h e a lth -c a re d e c isio n s d o e s n o t ex ten d to arb itrati o n ); Ma rin e r He a lt h Ca re, In c v. G u th rie , 20 05 U
. S
. D i st . L E X IS 42 65 1 (S. D
. M i ss. A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 ) (h o ld in g th e sa m e ); Covenant H eal th R ehab of

P i cayune, L . P. v. E s tate of L am bert , 984 So. 2d 283, *8- 9 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) ( hol di ng t hatM i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 41- 203( h) and i t s def

i ni t i on of “heal th- car e deci s i on” do notconf erupon heal th car e s urr ogat es th e rig h t to b in d p a tien ts to a rb itratio n ); see als o P agar i gan v. Libby Car e Ctr. , I nc. , 9 9 C a l. A p p . 4 th 2 9 8 , 1 2 0 C a l. R p tr. 2 d 8 9 2 (C a l. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); B la n k fe ld v. R ich m o n d

He a lth Ca r e, I n c ., 902 So. 2d 296, 301 ( Fl a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2005)
. Fur therm or e, arbi tr at i on i s not
am on g those m at t ers s pecif i cal l y deli neated i n the st atute as a “hea l th-car e decis i on . ” M i ss. C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -4 1 -2 0 3 (h ) (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ). T h e M iss iss ip p i C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s c o rre c tly ci t ed, quot ed, and app l i ed M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on s 41-41-21 1 an d 4 1- 41- 203( h) i n concl udi ng thatthe s t atut e and i t s def i ni t i on of “he al th- car e deci s i on” does notconf erupon health-car e surrogat es the ri gh tt o b i nd pati ents t o arbi trat i on agreem ents . Co v e n a n t H e a lth R eh ab of P i cayu n e, L . P. v. E state of L am bert , 9 8 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 3 , * 8 -9 . “T h e d e c isio n to
arbi tr a t e i s ne i the re xp l i c i t l y a utho r i z e d n ori mpl i e d wi thi n s e c t i on 41
- 41
- 20 3( h) w hi ch def i nes a hea l th car e dec i s i on . . . . ” Id
. ¶ 2 0
. E v e n in lig h t o f th e fa c t th a t th e lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te s p e c ifica lly d e lin e a tes w h a t sh all b e c o n side red “h ea lth -ca re d ec isi o n s” th is C o u rth as fo u n d in tha t a he alth -ca re
s urr ogat e ca n bi nd a pat i entt o arbi tr at i on. W hen addr es s i ng w hethera s urr ogat e has the

### 9

a u th o rity to b in d a n in c o m p e ten t p e rso n to a n a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t, th is C o u rt su m m a rily
s t at ed, “[ h] eradul tdaught er , G os s , w as an appr opr i at e mem berof the cl as s es f

r om w hi ch
a s urr ogat e coul d be dr aw n, and thus , G os s coul d contr actual l y bi nd B r ow n i n m att er s of heal th car e. ” Co v e n a n t H e a lth Re h a b o

f Pic a y u n e, L. P. v. Br o wn , 949 So. 2d 732, 737 ( M i s s . 2007)
. I ti s not ew or thy thatthe opi ni on i n Co v e n a n t H e a lth R ehab of

P i cayune, L. P. v. Bro wn d id n o t cite , ad d re ss , o r a n a ly z e “ h e a lth -c a re d e c isio n ” a s d e fin e d in M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 4 1 -41 -20 3 (h). ¶2 1
. I resp ec tf

u ll y d isag ree w ith this C o u rt ’s prior c ase law reg ard ing a h ea lth -ca re
s urr ogat e’ s abi l i ty t o bi nd a pat i entt o arbi tr at i on. H ence , I am com pel l ed t o w r i t e t oday, even though I agr ee w i th the out come i n the i ns t antcas e. I ti s cl earf r om a pl ai n- m eani ng i nt erpr et at i on of

the s t atut e thata hea l th- car e s urr ogat e i s notauthor i zed by M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 41 -41-203 (h) t o w ai ve o r com prom i se a pat i ent’ s property ri gh t s,
s uch as the r i ghtt o tr i al by j ury orci vi l r emedi es i n negl i gence , and ther ef or e, cannotbi nd a pat i entt o arbi tr at i on. Forthe f or egoi ng r eas ons , I concuri n the af f i r m ance of

the tr i al
c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t. DI AZ , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.