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 7 - I A- 0 1 6 7 3 - S CT LI SA B Y RD , AU RO RA CA RES, LLCd/ b/ a TAR A C

AR ES, M AN HAT T AN NUR S I NG & R EHA BI

L I T AT ION CENTER, LL C, BEVER LY ENTERP RI S ES , I NC, BE VERL Y

H EA LTH & REH AB I LI TA TIO N

SER VICES, I NC . f / k / a BEV ERLY CALI FO RN I A CO RP. , BEV

ERLY ENTER PRI

S ES-M I S S I S S I PP I , I NC. , M ANHATTAN H EALTH CAR E CENTER d/

b / a BEV ERLY H EALTH CAR E-M

AN H ATTAN d / b / a BEV ERLY H EALTH CAR E-EASON BO ULE VAR D d/

b / a BEV ERLY HEALT HCARE TUP

ELO AND BOBBI

E BL ACKAR D
v. I RA W . S I M M ONS
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 06/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : HAR DI N C HAS E P I T T M AN RE BE CC A ADE L M AN HE BE R S
. S I M M ONS W I L L I AM M E L VI N R OS AM OND W I LL I AM EUGENE GRUBBS A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : J O H N G O R D O N S I MS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 03/ 19/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 1 7 7 5 - S CT

### 2

M AN HAT T AN NUR S I NG & R EHA BI

L I T AT ION CENTER, LL C, AURORA CARES , LL C d / b / a TARA CARES , BOBBI E BL ACKAR D AND LI S A BYRD
v. I RA W . S I M M ONS D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 18/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : HAR DI N C HAS E P I T T M AN RE BE CC A ADE L M AN HE BE R S
. S I M M ONS W I L L I AM M E L VI N R OS AM OND A T T O R N E Y F O R A P P E L L E E : JO H N G O R D O N S IM S , III NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D A N D R E M A N D E D - 03/ 19/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. GR AVES, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he under l ying d i spute i n thi s cas e conc erns the ca r e and tr eatm entof a pat i ent at M anhatt an N ur s i ng & R ehabi l i t at i on C ent er( M anhat t an N ur s i ng) i n H i nds C ounty. F o llo w in g th e p a tien t’s d e a th , h e r so n su e d m u lti p le d e fe n d a n ts in H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt, alle g in g n e g lig e n c e , g ro ss n e g lig e n c e , an d b re a c h o f c o n tra c t. S e v e ra l d e fe n d a n ts
m oved t o compel arbi tr at i on pur s uantt o a n a rbi tr at i on a gr eements i gned by the pl ai nt i f f
. T he ci r cui tcourtdeni ed the mot i ons t o com pel arbi tr at i on. T her eaf t er , thes e def

endant s appea l ed to th is C o u rt. FACTS

### 3

¶2
. O n S ep tem b er 23 , 20 0 3 , E lsi e F idelia Sim m o n s (M rs. S im m o n s) w a s a d m itt e d to M anh at t an N ursi ng , w hich w as then kno w n as B everl y H eal thcare-M anh at t an. W hen M rs . S im m o n s w a s a d m itt e d , h e r so n , Ira S im m o n s, s ig n e d th e a d m iss io n a g re e m e n t as h is
m other ’ s “des i gnat ed r epr es ent at i ve. ” A re pr es ent at i ve f r om M anhatt an N ur s i ng al s o s i gned the admi s s i on agr eement . M r s . Si m m ons di d nots i gn the admi s s i on agr eement . T he admi s s i on agr eementw as f ol l ow ed by f

i ve appendi ces and f

ourexhi bi t s . E xhi bi tB w as an
a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. A g a in , the a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t w a s s ig n e d b y S im m o n s, a s h is
m other ’ s “des i gnat ed r epr es ent at i ve, ” butnotby M r s . Si m m ons . T he s i gnatur e l i ne on the arbi trat i on agreem en tforan “A uthori zed R epresent at i ve” o f the faci l i ty is blank. M rs . Si m m ons di ed on A ugus t22, 2004, w hi l e s t i l l a r es i dentatM anhatt an N ur s i ng. ¶3. O n M ay 18, 2005, Si m m ons f i l ed a compl ai nta gai ns tA ur or a C ar es , L L C , M anhatt an N u rsin g , B e v e rly E n terp rise s, In c . , B ev erly H ea lth a n d R e h a b ili tatio n S e rv ice s, In c ., B e v e rly E nterpri ses M i ssi ssi pp i , Inc. , A egis T herapi es, Inc. , B ob bie B l ackard, and tw enty John D oes. Si m m ons al l eged neg l i gence , gr os s negl i gence , and br eac h of contr actbas ed on per s onal i nj ur i es al l egedl y s uf

f er ed by M r s . Si m m ons and bas ed on heral l eged w r ongf ul death. Si m m ons s oughtcompensa t ory and puni t i ve damages
. A n am ended com pl ai nti ncl uded ad d it ion al de fen d an ts – L aw rence T am bu ri n o , W il li am K roo ss, L ee R o y B y rd, an d L isa B y rd

– a n d se t fo rth a d d iti o n a l th e o rie s o f n e g lig e n c e . T h e o n ly d e fe n d a n ts in v o lv e d in th is
cons ol i dat ed appea l a r e M anhatt an N ur s i ng, A ur or a C ar es , Bobbi e B l acka r d, a nd L i s a B yr d. M a n h a ttan N u rsin g is a n u rsin g h o m e in Ja c k so n , M iss iss ip p i. A u ro ra C a re s is a fo r-p ro fit
c o rp o ra tio n b a se d in N e w Y o rk . It is n o t c lea r f ro m th e re c o rd h o w e x a c tly A u ro ra C a re s is i nvol ved i n thi s cas e, buti ti s cl earthatA ur or a C ar es i s nota party t o the adm i s s i on and

### 4

arbi tr at i on agr eement s . Bl acka r d i s the admi ni s tr at orof B ever l y H eal th- M anhatt an, w hi ch i s now M anh at t an N ursi ng . B yrd i s a nurse pract i t i on er w ho treat ed M rs . S i m m on s. ¶4. A f

t erthe i ni t i at i on of

the l aw s ui t , M anhatt an N ur s i ng and A ur or a C ar es f i l ed a m ot i on t o co m pel arbitrat i on , argui ng that S i m m on s had s i gn ed an arbitrat i on agreem ent upon M rs . S i m m on s’ adm i ssi on t o M anh at t an N ursi ng and thatthis agreem ent r equ i red that Si m m on s’ cl ai m s be res olved throug h arbi trat i on . M anh at t an N ursi ng and A urora C ares a l so
m ai nt ai ned t hatSi m m ons s houl d be equi t abl y es t opped f r om chal l engi ng the arbi tr at i on agr eementbe caus e he had al r eady a l l eged thatM anhatt an N ur s i ng br eac hed the admi s s i on agreem ent. M anh at t an N ursi ng and A urora C ares fur ther ass ert ed thatA urora C ares , al though a nons i gnat ory t o the admi s s i on a nd arbi tr at i on agr eement s , had an e qui t abl e r i ght t o compel arbi tr at i on. B l acka r d j oi ned the mot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on f i l ed by M anhatt an N ursi ng and A urora C ares . ¶5. I n r es pons e, Si m m ons ar gued that , beca us e an a uthor i zed r epr es ent at i ve of M anh a tt an N ur s i ng nevers i gned the arbi tr at i on agr eement , m utual ass entbetw een Si m m ons and M anh at t an N ursi ng w as l acking an d n o v al i d arbi trat i on agreem ent exi st ed. S i m m on s al so
ar gued that , beca us e he r evoked hi s of f ert o a rbi tr at e bef

or e a r epr es ent at i ve f

r om M anhatt an N ur s i ng c oul d s i gn the arbi tr at i on agr eement , hi s of f erw as neveracc ept ed and no a gr eement
w as f orm ed. S i m m on s ar gu ed in the alt erna t i ve thathe h ad n o au tho ri ty fr om M rs . Si m m ons ’ G ener al Pow erof A t t orney t o bi nd he rt o the arbi tr at i on a gr eement . H e di d not chal l enge the r i ghtof

A ur or a C ar es t o s eek a rbi tr at i on. ¶6. T he t ri al court i s s ued a m emora ndum opi ni on and or der on J ul y 2, 2007 and s t at ed that the d efendan t s had n ot dem on strat ed that Si m m on s had the authori ty to bi nd M rs .

### 5

S i m m on s t o arbi trat i on . T he tr i al cou rtst at ed thatthe re w as n o sho w i ng of Sim m on s’
e x p re ss , im p lied , ap p a re n t, or sta tu to ry a u th o rity to sig n th e arb itratio n ag re e m e n t o n b e h a lf of hi s m other
. T he tr i al cou rtno t ed thatthe G en era l P ow er of A t t orney e xecu t ed b y M rs . Si m m ons gave Si m m ons the author i ty t o make dec i s i ons r egar di ng herbus i nes s and per s onal af f ai r s , butt hatthi s di d notgr anthi m the author i ty t o ent erthe arbi tr at i on agr eementon her behal f
. T he tr i al courtal s o f

ound t hat , w hi l e Si m m ons coul d have made ce r t ai n deci s i ons as hi s m other ’ s heal th- car e surr ogat e, he w as notaut hor i zed t o ent eran arbi tr at i on agr eement on herbehal f

. Fi nal l y, the t r i al cour tfound thatS i m m ons w as notes t opped f r om cont es t i ng the arbi tr at i on agr eementw hi l e s ui ng f orbr eac h of

contr act . T he tr i al courtr eas oned that
res po nsi ble par t i es could enteri nto nursi ng ho m e agre ement s , but notarbi trat i on agreem ents , s o “ th e n u rs in g h o m e a g re e m e n t is fu lly e n fo rc e a b le , e x c e p t f o r t h e a rb it ra tio n p ro v is io n .” M anhatt an N ur s i ng, A ur or a C ar es , and B l acka r d t i m el y f i l ed a not i ce of

appea l on J ul y 27, 2007. ¶7. A s f

orL i s a B yr d, s he f

i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s or f orsumm ary j udgm entas w el l as
a s ubs equentmot i on t o c om pel arbi tr at i on. I n herm ot i on t o compel , B yr d s t at ed thatf eder al pol i cy f avor ed arbi tr at i on and ar gued thatthe arbi tr at i on a gr eemente nt er ed i nt o by Si m m ons and M anhatt an N ur s i ng gave Byrd the r i ghtt o comp el arbi tr at i on des pi t e bei ng a
n o n sig n a to ry . B y rd f

u rth e r a rg u e d th a t th e d o c trin e o f e q u itab le e sto p p e l allo w e d h e r to compe l a rbi tr a t i on be c a us e the a l l e ga t i on s a ga i ns the rw e r e ba s e d o n the a dmi s s i on agr eementand w er e “s ubs t ant i al l y i nt er depende nt ” w i th t he al l egat i ons agai ns tM anhatt an N ur s i ng and A ur or a C ar es . B yr d al s o cl ai m ed t hatshe w as an agentof M anhatt an N ur s i ng,
a n d c o u ld , the re fo re , inv o k e th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t.

### 6

¶ 8
. S im m o n s filed a re sp o n se to B y rd ’s m o tio n to c o m p e l a rb itratio n a n d a rg u e d a g a in thatm utual as s entw as l acki ng beca us e an a utho r i z e d r e pr e s e nt a t i ve f r om M anhatt an N ur s i ng fai l ed to si gn the arbi trat i on agreem ent. S i m m on s al so ass ert ed thatthe all egati on s agai nst B yr d w er e notbas ed on the adm i s s i on agr eementand thatB yr d w as notan age ntof M a n h a ttan N u rsin g . L a stly , S im m o n s p o in ted o u t th a t B y rd h a d fu lly lit ig a te d th e d isp u te
a n d h a d p a rt ic ip a te d in d is c o v e ry fo r o n e y e a r b e fo re m o v in g to c o m p e l a rb itr a tio n . ¶9
. T h e trial c o u rt issue d a m em o ran d u m o p inion an d o rde r d en y ing B y rd’s m o ti o n to compel arbi tr a t i on o n the s a me g r ou nd s i tr e l i e d up on t o de ny the mot i on t o c ompe l by M a n h a ttan N u rsin g an d A u ro ra C a re s. B y rd ti m e ly fil e d a p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. T he pet i t i on w as pas s ed f orcons i der at i on and cons ol i dat ed w i th the appe al of M anhatt an N ur s i ng, A ur or a C ar es , and B l acka r d, and, f orr eas ons s eto ut i n t his opi ni on, w e now
s um m ar i l y gr anti nt er l ocut ory appea l and af f i r m and r emand t he pet i t i on. A N A L Y S IS Standard of

R eview ¶10. “The gr antordeni al of a m ot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on i s r evi ew ed de novo. ” G r enada L i ving Ctr. , L L C

v. Colem an , 961 So. 2d 33, 36 ( M i ss. 20 07 ) ( quot i ng E as t For d, I nc. v. T aylor , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d 7 0 9 , 7 1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 2 )); P re -P a id L e g a l S e rv s., In c . v. B a ttle , 873 So. 2d 7 9 , 8 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). I. W h ether a V ali d A rb i trat i on A greem en t E xis ts . ¶11. T hi s C our t has pr evi ous l y hel d that agr eement s betw een pat i ent s and nur s i ng hom es af f ecti nt er s t at e comm er ce and, ther ef or e, f al l unde rthe pur vi ew of the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A c t, 9 U .S .C .S . § § 1 -3 0 7 . See, e. g. , G rena da L i vin g Ctr. , 96 1 S o . 2 d at 36 (cit ati o n o m itted).

### 7

T he Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ctr equi r es thatthi s C our tf i r s tdet erm i ne w hetherornotthe part i es in ten d e d to a rb itrate th e d isp u te in o rd e r to d e c id e w h e th e r a n a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t sh o u ld b e e n fo rc e d
. See, e. g. , G rena da L i vin g Ctr. , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d at 36
. In o rde r to co n clud e tha t th ere
w a s a n a g re e m e n t to a rb itr a te , th e re m u s t b e a v a lid c o n tr a c t. G rena da L i vin g Ctr. , 961 So. 2d at36- 37. “A val i d cont ractm us thave ( 1) tw o orm or e contr act i ng part i es , ( 2)
c o n sid e ra tio n , (3 ) a n a g re e m e n t th a t is su ffic ien tly d e fin ite, (4 ) p a rties w ith le g a l ca p a c ity to
m ake a contr act , ( 5) m utual as s ent , and ( 6) no l egal pr ohi bi t i on pr ecl udi ng cont rac t f or m at i on. ” I

d. at37 ( ci t i ng R otenber r y v. Hooker , 864 So. 2d 266, 270 ( M i s s . 2003) )
. T he S u p re m e C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt h a v e h e ld tha t “[a ]rb itratio n is a m a tter o f c o n tra c t an d a p a rty
c a n n o t b e re q u ir e d to s u b m it to a rb itr a tio n a n y d is p u te w h ic h h e h a s n o t a g re e d so to s u b m it.” P r e-P aid L egal

Ser vs . , I nc. , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d at 8 3 (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o A T& T

T echs . , I nc.
v. Co mmc ’n s Wo rk e rs o f A m. , 475 U . S. 643, 648, 106 S. C t . 1415, 1418, 89 L
. E d. 2d 648, 6 5 5 (19 8 6 )). ¶12
. M anhatt an N ur s i ng, A ur or a C ar es , and B l acka r d m ai nt ai n on appea l that Si m m on s had author i ty t o bi nd M r s . Si m m ons t o the arbi tr at i on contr actei therpur s uantt o the G ener al Pow ero f A t t orney orunderthe U ni f or m H eal th C ar e Surr ogat e St atut e. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 41- 211 ( R ev. 2005)
. A l t ernat i vel y, they ar gue thatSi m m ons s houl d be es t opped f r om chal l engi ng t he val i di ty of t he arbi tr at i on agr eementbeca us e he s eeks enf or cementof

t he admi s s i on agr eementand bec aus e M r s . Si m m ons w as a thi r d- party benef i ci ary of the ad m issi o n ag ree m en t. M an h att an N u rsi n g , A u rora C are s, an d B lack ard also n o te th at B y rd
w as not theiragen t , and i s, theref ore, no tenti t l ed to com pel arbitrat i on on that basi s.

### 8

¶13. Si m m ons r ei t er at es on appea l t hat t here i s no val i d arbi tr at i on agr eement beca us e a
r epr es ent at i ve f

r om M anhatt an N ur s i ng nevers i gned the arbi tr at i on agr eementand, hence , neveracc ept ed Si m m on s’ o ff ert o arbi tr at e. H e adds thathi s of f ert o ent erthe arbi tr at i on agr eementw as re voked bef or e M anhatt an N ur s i ng acc ept ed the of f er . Si m m ons m ai nt ai ns that, for the se re aso n s, the a rbitrati o n ag ree m en t l ac k ed the m u tual asse n t r eq u ir ed to fo rm a val i d contr act . H e al s o cl ai m s thathe i s notes t opped f r om chal l engi ng the val i di ty of the
a rb i tr a t i o n a g r e e me n tb e c a u s e th e a d mi s s i o n a g r e e me n ti n c l u d e s a s e v e r a b i l i ty c l a u s e . He fur ther m ai ntai ns t hat he i s no test op ped fr om ch al l eng i ng the arbi trat i on agreem ent because M r s . Si m m ons di d notbe nef i ta s a thi r d- party be nef

i ci ary t o the admi s s i on agr eements i nce
s he w as al l egedl y m i s tr eat ed atM anhatt an N ur s i ng. L as t l y, Si m m ons s um m ar i l y s t at es t hat h e a g re e s w ith M a n h a ttan N u rsin g , A u ro ra C a re s, a n d B lac k a rd th a t B y rd is n o t en tit led to compel arbi tr at i on. ¶14. M anhatt an N ur s i ng, A ur or a C ar es , and B l acka r d ar gue i n thei r r ebutt al br i ef thatt he
arbi tr a t i on a gr e e menti s va l i d b e c a us e , a l tho ug h the r e i s no s i gn a tur e f r om a M a nhat t an N ursi ng r epresent at i ve, M anh at t an N ursi ng off ered the con tractt o S i m m on s, and S i m m on s’
acc ept ance ( as evi dence d by hi s s i gnatur e) de m ons tr at es m utual as s ent . T hey al s o count er that the a rbitrati o n ag ree m en t can n o t be s ev e re d fr o m the a d m issi o n ag ree m en t un ti l th ere i s a “f i nal j udi ci al f

i ndi ng” thatthe arbi tr at i on agr eementi s unenf or cea bl e. ¶ 1 5 . W e fin d S im m o n s’ a rg u m e n t th a t th e a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t la c k e d m u tu a l a ss e n t to be per s uas i ve. A n author i zed r epr es ent at i ve f r om M anhatt an N ur s i ng f ai l ed t o s i gn t he
a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t, an d S im m o n s’ c o u n se l se n t a le tter to M a n h a ttan N u rsin g , m a k in g it cl earthata ny of

f ert o arbi tr at e had be en r evoked. Fur therm or e, bef or e M anhatt an N ur s i ng

### 9

h a d tak e n a n y ac tio n w h a tso e v e r th a t w a s c o n sis ten t w ith a rb itratio n , S im m o n s file d su it i n the ci r cui tcourt– an ac tcompl et el y i ncons i s t entw i th an agr eementt o arbi tr at e. ¶ 1 6
. T h e F e d e ra l A rb itratio n A c t sta tes in p a rt th a t “ a n a g re e m e n t in w riting to su b m it t o
arbi tr at i on an exi s t i ng contr over s y . . . s hal l be val i d, i rr evoca bl e, and enf or cea bl e, s ave upon
s uch gr ounds as exi s tatl aw or i n equi ty fort he r evoca t i on of a ny contr act . ” 9 U
. S. C
. S. § 2. T hus , thi s C our tm us tappl y the s ame anal ys i s f orm utual as s entt o arbi tr at i on agr eement s as it w o u ld a p p ly to a n y o th e r ty p e o f c o n tra c t. ¶17. A ddr es s i ng the i s s ue of m utual as s ent , thi s C our thas s t at ed: O r di nar i l y one of

the act s form i ng par tof the exec ut i on of a w r i t t en contr act i s the s i gni ng of

i t , and the m er e f

actthata w r i t t en i ns trum entpurpor t s t o be an agr eementdoes notcons t i tut e i ta bi ndi ng contr actw her e i ti s nots i gned. H ow ever , s i gnatur e i s notal w ays es s ent i al t o the bi ndi ng f or ce of an agr eement , and w hethera w r i t i ng c ons t i tut es a bi ndi ng contr acteven though i ti s nots i gned orw hetherthe s i gni ng of the i nst rum ent i s a c ondi t i on pr ece dentt o i t s becomi ng a bi ndi ng contr actus ual l y depends on the i nt ent i on o f t h e p a rt ie s . The obj ect of a s ignat ur e is t o s how m ut ual i t y oras s ent

, but thes e f act s m ay be s how n i n otherways, as , f orexam pl e, by the act

s orconduct of the par t i es . . . . The que s t i on as t o w hetherthos e w ho have s i gned ar e bound i s gener al l y t o be det erm i ned by t he i nt ent i on and unders tandi ng of the par t i es a t th e tim e o

f th e ex e c u tio n o

f th e in str u m e n t. T he r eas on f orhol di ng the i ns trum entvoi d i s thati tw as i nt ended thatal l the part i es s houl d exec ut e i tand thateac h exec ut es i ton the i m pl i ed condi t i on thatitis to be execut ed by the o th e rs, a n d , the re fo re , th a t un til ex e c u ted b y a ll i t is in c h o a te a n d in c o m p lete and neve rt akes ef

f ectas a val i d c ontr act , a nd thi s i s es peci al l y true w her e the a gr e e mente xp r e s s l y pr ov i de s , o ri t s man i f e s ti nt e nti s , tha ti ti s nott o be bi ndi ng unt i l s i gned. Turney v. Mar i on Count y B d. of E duc. , 48 1 So
. 2d 77 0, 77 4 ( M i s s . 1 98 5) ( qu ot i ng 1 7 C. J . S. C ontr act s § 6 2 (1963 )) (e m phas i s added)
. Fur therm or e, “[ a] courtcannot‘ dr af ta contr act betw een tw o part i es w her e they have notm ani f es t ed a mutual as s entt o be bound. ’ ” I vis on

### 10

v. I vis on , 762 So. 2d 329, 336 ( M i s s . 2000) ( quot i ng A . C o p e la n d E n ters. v. P ick e tt & Meador , I nc. , 4 2 2 S o . 2 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 4 (M is s . 1 9 8 2 ). ¶18. T he arbi tr at i on agr eementi n thi s cas e r equi r ed the s i gnatur e of both part i es . A l though M anhatt an N ur s i ng does notdi s put e the f actt hatone of

i t s author i zed r epr es ent at i ves never
s i gned the arbi tr at i on agr eement , i tm ai nt ai ns thatthe part i es ’ conductevi dence s m utual
a ss e n t. In a d d re ss in g th is a rg u m e n t, i t is im p o rta n t to re c o g n ize th a t M a n h a ttan N u rsin g d id notr equi r e M r s . Si m m ons t o agr ee t o arbi tr at e i n or derto be adm i t t ed t o i t s f aci l i ty. M or eover , the admi s s i on agr eementand arbi tr at i on agr eementar e s epar at e agr eement s that
eac h s t and al one. W hi l e a M anhatt an N ur s i ng r epr es ent at i ve s i gned t he adm i s s i on agr eement , an author i zed M anhatt an N ur s i ng r epr es ent at i ve neve rs i gned the arbitrat i on ag ree m en t. A n d w h il e M an h att an N u rsi n g ’s co n d u ct (as ev iden ce d b y the re p rese n tat ive’s sig n a tu re o n th e ad m iss io n ag re e m e n t an d its a d m iss io n o f M rs. S im m o n s a s a re sid e n t o f its fa c ili ty ) in d ica tes its a ss e n t to th e a d m iss io n a g re e m e n t, i t d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te th a t it
as s ent ed t o the arbi t rat i on agr eement . T he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence thatM anhatt an N ur s i ng acc ept ed the arbi tr at i on agr eementpr i ort o Si m m ons ’ i ni t i at i on of thi s l aw s ui t . T he f i r s tact i on t aken by e i therparty r el at i ng t o the arbi tr at i on ag reem entaf t erSi m m ons had sig n e d it w a s h is o u tr ig h t re jec tio n o f th e a g re e m e n t b y filing su it i n ste a d o f filin g a c laim f orarbi tr at i on. ¶19. T hi s C our tf

i nds thatSi m m ons ’ s i gnatur e on the arbi tr at i on a gr eement( w hi ch l acke d
a s i gnatur e by an author i zed M anhatt an N ur s i ng r epr es ent at i ve) w as an of f erthatw as never
acc ept ed by M anhatt an N ur s i ng. T her ef or e, the arbi tr at i on a gr eementl acke d mut ual as s ent
a n d is n o t a v a lid c o n tr a c t. See G rena da L i vin g Ctr. , 961 So. 2d at37.

### 11

¶20. W e now turn t o the otherar gum ent s r ai s ed on appe al
. M anhatt an N ur s i ng ar gues that S im m o n s is e sto p p e d fro m c h a llen g in g th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t b e c a u se h e a lso se e k s to
e n fo rc e th e a d m is s io n a g re e m e n t th ro u g h h is b re a c h -o f- c o n tr a c t c la im s . A s s tate d a b o v e , this C o u rt fin d s th a t th e a d m iss io n a g re e m e n t an d a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t ar e se p a ra te a g re e m e n ts thateac h s t and al on e. Fur therm or e, a M anhatt an N ur s i ng r epr es ent at i ve s i gned the admi s s i on agr eement , and M anhatt an N ur s i ng’ s conductdemonstr at es thati tacc ept ed the t erm s of the admi s s i on agr eement . T her ef or e, i ti s noti ncons i s t entf orSi m m ons t o ar gue that the arbi tr at i on agr eementi s i nval i d w hi l e s i m ul t aneous l y s eeki ng t o enf or ce the t erm s of

t he
s epar at e admi s s i on agr eement . H ence , thi s C our tf i nds M anhatt an N ursi ng’ s es t oppel
a rg u m e n t to b e w ith o u t m e rit. ¶21
. S i nce w e conclude t hat no val i d arbi trat ion ag ree m en t exists, w e d o n o t ad dress M anhatt an N ur s i ng’ s ar gum entthatSi m m ons had author i ty t o bi nd M r s . Si m m on s t o the
a rb itratio n c o n tra c t p u rsu a n t to th e G e n e ra l P o w e r o f A tto rn e y o r u n d e r th e U n ifo rm H e a lth C are Surrogat e S t atute. L i kew i se, w e do no tr each M anh at t an N ursi ng ’s ar gu m ent that M rs . S i m m ons i s bound t o the arbi tr at i on agr eementas a thi r d- party benef i ci ary. L as t l y, w e do notr each the is s ue of w hetherB yr d m ay com pel arbi tr at i on as a nons i gnat ory t o the
a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t sin c e w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s n o v a lid a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. CO NC L US I ON ¶22
. T h e p eti ti o n fori nter l ocu t ory appe al i s grant ed and the m eri ts of the a p p ea l are
co n side red p u rsua n t t o this co n so li d ated ap p ea l. A ft er a d e n o v o review of the tr ial co u rt ’s deci s i ons t o de ny the mot i ons t o compel , thi s C our tf i nds thatther e w as no val i d arbi tr at i on

### 12

agr eement . T her ef

or e, the tr i al court ’ s or der s denyi ng the mot i ons t o compel ar e af f i r m ed, and these cases ar e rem and ed for f urther proceedings. ¶ 2 3
. AF F I RM ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, RANDOL P H, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , CONCUR.