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 - CT - 0 1 2 5 0 - S CT CO VENA NT

HEA L T H & REHAB I

L I T AT ION OF PICAYUNE, LPAND COVENANT DOVE, I NC.
v. ES T AT E O F MI T T

I E M. M OUL DS

, BY AN D THROUGH

J AM ESBRADDOCK, A D M IN IST RA TO R F O R T

H E U S E A N D B EN E F IT OFTH E ESTATE AN

D W RO NG FU

L DE ATH BENE FICI

AR I ESOF M I T T I E M. M OUL DS ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 07/ 02/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . R . I. P R IC H A R D , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: P EARL RI VER COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : JO H N L . M A X E Y , II HE AT HE R MARI E AB Y PAU L HO BA RT K I M BLE ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: F. M . TUR NER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S RE VE RS E D. T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CI RCUI T COURT OF P EARL RI VE R C OUNT Y I S RE I NS T AT E D AND A FFIRM E D - 08/ 06/ 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. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T h e issu e p re se n ted is th e e n fo rc e m e n t vel non of an arbi tr at i on cl aus e m ade partof
a c o n tra c t. Ja m e s B ra d d o c k a ss e rts th a t th e c o n tra c t is o n e o f a d h e sio n a n d c o n tain s m u lti p leCo v e n a n t He a lth Re h a b . o

f Pi c a y u n e, L. P. v. Br o wn , 94 9 S o. 2d 73 2, 73 5-42 (M i ss. 1 2 0 0 7 ); 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 2 1 -2 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). See a l so T rin ity Miss io n He a lth & R e h a b . o f Clin to n v. E sta te o

f S c o tt , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 3 6 8 2 , at ** 4 -5 (M iss . C t. A p p . Ja n . 8 , 2 0 0 8 ); T r init y Mis s i on of

Clinton v. B arber , 988 S o. 2d 910, 922- 24 (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ); Coven an t H ealt h & R eh ab . of P i cayu n e, L Pv. E state of L am bert , 9 8 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 6 -89 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). 

### Brown , 949 So. 2d at

742-48 ( Diaz, J ., di ss enting, joined by Grave s, J. ; Randolph, 2 

### J. , c oncur ring in part

and di ss enting in part, joinedb y Waller, P.J . and Diaz, J. , in part) ; Ste phens , 91 1 S o. 2 d at 52 6. Seeals o S c o tt , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 3 6 8 2 , at * 6 ; B arber , 988 So. 2d at 9 2 4 -2 6 ; L am bert , 9 8 4 S o . 2 d a t 2 8 9 . 

### 2 u n c o n sc io n a b le p ro v isio n s. A ltern a tiv e ly , B ra d d o c k u rg e s th a t if the a rb itratio n c lau se is enf or cea bl e, the f

orum put at i vel y agr eed t o i s unavai l abl e. W e have cons i der ed more t han
on e case i nv olvi ng this s am e arbitrat i on agreem ent, and i n othercases , very s i m i l ar cl auses. A l m os tunani m ous l y, w e have decl ar ed s ever al of thes e cont es t ed pr ovi s i ons t o be
uncons ci onabl e. Pr evi ous l y, a maj or i ty of t his C ou r tdet erm i ned thatthe contr act , as amended by t he C our t , i ncl udi ng the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on , s houl d be enf or ced, butnot

1
w ith o u t d iss e n t. 2 ¶2 . D e sp it e this C o u rt ’s ad m o n it ion s to th e d ra fte rs o f su c h c o n tra c ts to e lim in a te
u n c o n s c io n a b le c la u s e s a n d th e re lu c ta n c e o f c o u rt s to re fo rm a n d re w ri te c o n tr a c ts , a v e ri ta b le d e lu g e o f c o n te s ts o v e r a rb itr a tio n is s u e s c o n tin u e s in th e c o u rt s o f o u r s ta te . ¶3. B ased on the is sues con si dered an d the app l i cat i on of basi c con tract -l aw pri ncipl es, w e c o n c lu d e th a t t h is c o n tra c t is u n c o n sc io n a b le, a s it c o n tain s n u m e ro u s u n c o n sc io n a b le pr ovi s i ons . T he contr actw eave s unc ons ci onabl e nonf orum t erm s i nt o the arbi tr at i on p ro v is io n . A rb itr a tio n is lim ite d to c h o ic e o f f o ru m . See Mit

s ubis hiMotors Cor

p. v. Soler Ch ry sle r-P lym o u th , 4 7 3 U . S . 6 1 4 , 6 2 8 , 1 0 5 S . C t. 3 3 4 6 , 3 3 5 4 , 8 7 L . E d . 4 4 4 , 4 5 6 (19 8 5 );

### 3

Ste phe ns , 9 11 S o. 2d at525. T hi s concl us i on i s cons i s t entw i th ourbody of l aw r egar di ng the enf or cementof

contr act s , and conf

or m s t o the nat i onal body of l aw addr es s i ng s i m i l ar i ssues. T he cou rs e w e f oll ow exceed s the excis i on of nu m erous unco nsci on able pr ov i si on s, a n d v o id s th e c o n tra c t. F u rth e rm o re , sin c e a rb itratio n is a b o u t fo ru m c h o ice , w e re w e to a ss u m e a rg u e n d o th e v a lid ity o f th e c o n tra c t, th e c o n tes ted a g re e m e n t to a rb itrate still w o u ld be unenf or cea bl e, as the f

orum put at i vel y agr eed upon i s unavai l abl e. T he l earned tr i al j udge ri g h tly d e n ie d a rb itr a tio n a s th e fo ru m fo r t h is d is p u te . ¶4. B r addock ( the admi ni s tr at orof the pl ai nt i f

f est at e) f

i l ed a w rongful -deat h act i on a g a in st C o v e n a n t H e a lth a n d R e h a b ili tatio n o f P ica y u n e , L P (“ C o v e n a n t H e a lth ” ), an d its g e n e ra l p a rtn e r, C o v e n a n t D o v e , In c ., in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f P e a rl R iv e r C o u n ty . T h e c irc u it
courtdeni ed C ovenantH eal th’ s m ot i on t o compe l arbi t rat i on, f i ndi ng i nt eral i a thatthe admi s s i ons a gr eement , a s a w hol e, w as unc ons ci onabl e. T he C our tof A ppeal s r ever s ed and
re m a n d e d . Covenant

Heal th and R ehab. of

P i cayune, L Pv. Moulds , 2008 W L 3843820,
a t * 5 (M iss . C t. A p p . A u g . 1 9 , 2 0 0 8 ). B ra d d o c k ’s m o tio n fo r re h e a ri n g w a s d e n ied . T h is C o u rt g ra n te d B ra d d o c k ’s p e titio n fo r c e rt io ra ri . Covenant Heal th & R ehab. of

P i cayune, L Pv. E s tate of

Moulds , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 0 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ). T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S OP I NI ON ¶5 . T he C our tof A ppeal s has expr es s ed i t s “ s e r i ou s mi s gi vi ng s a bo utthe l a ng ua ge in c lu d e d in th e a d m iss io n s a g re e m e n t,” b u t th a t co u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t itw a s “ c o m p e lle d to conf i r m the s ubs t ant i ve cons ci onabi l i ty of the admi s s i ons agr eem ent and the arbi tr at i on cl aus e. ” Moulds , 2008 W L 3843820, at*5. T he C our tof A ppeal s not ed t hatthi s C our thas d e a lt w ith th e s a m e c o n tr a c t la n g u a g e a lo n g w ith v e ry s im ila r f a c ts . I d.

### 4

¶6. Separ at el y, on t he i s sue o f t he no nav ai l abil i t y of t he arbi tr al f orum , the C our t of A ppeal s f

ound thatthe arbi tr at i on agr eementw oul d al l ow the ci r cui tcourtt o choos e an a rb itr a to r i f t h e fo ru m c h o s e n b y th e p a rt ie s w a s u n a v a ila b le . Moulds , 2008 W L 3843820,
a t * * 5 -6 ; See al

s o S c o tt , 2 0 0 8 W L 7 3 6 8 2 , a t * 6 . BA CKGROUND ON AP P LI CAB LE LA W ¶7. W e r ecogni ze that the us e of arbi tr at i on t o r es ol ve di s put es f i nds f avor underf

eder al and s t at e l aw . I n I

PT im berlan ds O

perating Co. v. D enm is s Cor p. , 72 6 S o. 2d 96 (M i ss. 1 9 9 8 ), t h is C o u rt d is c u s s e d tw o c o n fl ic tin g lin e s o f c a s e s . I

d. at103- 04. O ne f

avor ed
arbi tr a t i on , w hi l e the othe rw ou l d a l l ow a c on tr a c t i ng pa r ty t o r e vo ke a n a rbi tr a t i on ag ree m en t if

i t d id so w h il e the ag ree m en t w as stil l exe cu tory (be fore an aw ard w as m ad e). I d. T h e C o u rt se ttl e d th e c o n flict a s fo llo w s: T hi s C our ther eby over turns the f or m erl i ne of

cas e l aw thatj eal ous l y guar ded the court ' s j ur i s di ct i on. A gai n, w e e xp re s s l y s t at e thatthi s C our tw i l l r es pect th e rig h t o f a n in d iv id u a l o r a n e n tity to a g re e in a d v a n c e o f a d isp u te to arbi tr at i on orot heral t ernat i ve di s put e r es ol ut i on. I d. at104. T he I

PT im ber lands C our tal s o r ecogni zed thatC ongr ess, b y enact i ng s ect i on tw o of the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct( “FA A ”) , “‘ decl ar ed a na t i onal pol i cy f avor i ng arbi tr at i on a n d wi th d r e w t h e p o we ro f t h e s t a t e s t o r e q u i r e a j u d i c i a l f o ru m f o rth e r e s o l u t i o n o f

c l a i ms w hi ch the contr act i ng part i es agr eed t o r es ol ve by arbi tr at i on. ’ ” I d. at 107 ( quot i ng Sout hland C or p. v. Keating , 4 6 5 U . S . 1 , 1 0 , 1 0 4 S . C t. 8 5 2 , 8 5 8 , 7 9 L . E d . 2 d 1 , 1 2 (19 8 4 )). I PT im ber lands c ites U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t fo r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “[d ]ou b ts a s to the avai l abi l i ty of arbi tr at i on m us tbe re s ol ved i n f avorof arbi tr at i on. ” I

PT im ber lands , 726 So. 2d at107 ( ci t i ng Mos es H . C one Mem ’l

Hos p. v. Mer cur

y Constr. Cor

p. , 46 U . S. 1, 24,

### 5

103 S. C t . 927, 941, 74 L . E d. 2d 765, 785 ( 1983) ) . H ow ever , the Mos e s H . Cone C o u rt s epar at el y hel d thatthe FA A expl i ci t l y m akes an exc ept i on w her e “gr ounds [ ] exi s tatl aw ori n equi ty f

ort he revocati on of

any contr act . ” Mos e s H . Cone , 46 U . S. at24 ( quot i ng F e d e ra l A rb itr a tio n A c t, 9 U .S .C . § 2 (2 0 0 6 )) . ¶8. A rbi tr at i on agr eement s and other contr act t erm s s houl d be on equ al foot i ng , i n t hat
s t at e court s m ay noti nval i dat e arbi tr at i on agr eement s underl aw s thataf f ectonl y arbi tr at i on a g re e m e n ts . D o c to r’s A ss o c s. v. Ca sa ro tto , 517 U . S. 681, 687, 116 S. C t . 1652, 1656, 134 L . E d. 2d 90 2, 9 09 (1996) . T hati s , arbi tr at i on cl aus es s hal l notr ece i ve es peci al tr eatm ent
n o t o th e rw ise a v a ilab le u n d e r b a sic sta te c o n tra c t pr in c ip les . T h is p rin c ip le c o m p o rts w ith th e p ro n o u n c e m e n t o f th e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt in P er r y v. T hom as , 482 U . S. 483, 489, 107 S. C t . 25 20 , 25 33 , 96 L. Ed. 2d 42 6 ( 19 87 ) , w hi c h h e l d the on l y e xc e pt i on s t o the f e de r al pol i cy l i e i n contr act s notevi denci ng i nt er s t at e comm er ce orthatar e r evoca bl e “upon s uch gr ounds as exi s tatl aw ori n equi ty f orthe r evoca t i on of

any contr act . ” I

d. at489 ( quot i ng F A A , 9 U .S .C . § 2 ). ¶9. A ppl yi ng FA A langua ge and U . S . S up rem e C ou rtd eci si ons, w e have hel d that “appl i cabl e contr actdef ens es avai l abl e unders t at e contr actl aw s uch as f r aud, dur es s , and
uncons ci onabi l i ty m ay be a s s ert ed t o i nval i dat e the arbi tr at i on agr eementw i thoutof f endi ng the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct . ” E as t Ford, I nc. v. T aylor , 826 So. 2d 709, 713 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng Ca sa ro tto , 5 1 7 U .S . a t 6 8 6 ). ¶10. “[ E ] qui ty has a l ong hi s t ory of conce rn w i th the s ubs t ant i ve con sci on abi l i ty of t he
ex erc ise o f ri g h ts give n by ag ree m en t. ” 7-2 9 C o rbin o n C o n tr ac ts § 2 9 . 2 (20 0 9 ). O n e c o u rt

### 6

expl ai ned i t s r at i onal e f ordenyi ng speci f

i c per f or m ance of

an uncons ci onabl e contr actas fo llo w s: a p a rty w h o h a s o ffe re d an d su c c e e d e d in g e tti n g a n a g re e m e n t as to u g h a s th is one i s , s houl d notc om e t o a cha ncel l orand as k courthel p i n the enf or cement o f its term s. T h a t eq u ity d o e s n o t en fo rc e u n c o n sc io n a b le b a rg a in s is to o w e ll es t abl i s hed t o r equi r e el abor at e ci t at i on. Ca m p b e ll S o u

p Co . v. W

e n tz , 1 7 2 F .2 d 8 0 , 8 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 4 8 ). ¶11 . C orbi n ex po un ds on the m eaning o f “unco nsci on able” as f oll ow s:

“ U n c o n s c io n a b le ” is a w o rd th a t d e f ie s l a w y e r- lik e d e fi n itio n . Itis a t erm b o rrow ed from m o ral p h il o so p h y an d ethics. A s close t o a de fi n it ion as w e a re li k ely to g et i s “th at w h ich ‘a ffr o n ts th e sen se o f de ce n cy . ’” A m uch- quot ed j udi ci al def

i ni t i on i s “an a bs ence of m eani ngf

ul choi ce on the partof

one of the part i es t ogetherw i th contractte r m s w hi ch ar e unr eas onabl y f avor abl e t o the otherparty. ” 7- 29 C orbi n on C ontr act s § 29. 4 ( 2009) ( quot i ng G im b el B ro s. In c. v. S w if t , 307 N . Y . S. 2d 9 5 2 , 9 5 4 (1 9 7 0 ); Wil

lia ms v. W

al ker- T hom as F urniture Co. , 3 5 0 F . 2 d 4 4 5 , 4 4 9 (D . C . C ir . 1 9 6 5 )). ¶12. O urpr ece dentf

ol l ow s the Wil

lia ms ( “abs ence of m eani ngf ul choi ce”) l ang uage a s q u o te d a b o v e f

ro m C o rb in . See E nter gy Mis s . , I

nc. v. B urde tte G in Co. , 726 So. 2d 1202, 1207 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng B a n ko f In dia n a , N

a t’l A ss ’n . v. Ho lyf

ield , 476 F. Supp. 104, 1 0 9 (S .D . M is s . 1 9 7 9 )) . U n c o n s c io n a b ility c a n b e p ro c e d u ra l o r s u b s ta n tiv e . E ast Ford , 826 So. 2d at714. U nder“subs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty, w e l ook w i thi n the f ourcorner s of

an agr eementi n or dert o di s coverany abus es r el at i ng t o the s peci f i c t erm s w hi ch vi ol at e the expec t at i ons of

, orcaus e gr os s di s par i ty betw een, the contr act i ng part i es . ” Ste phe ns , 911 So. 2d at521. Subst ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty i s pr oven b y oppr es s i ve contr actt erm s s uch that“ther e i s a one- s i ded agr eementw her eby one pa r ty i s depr i ved of al l the bene f

i t s of the

### 7

a g re e m e n t o r l e ft w ith o u t a re m e d y fo r a n o th e r p a rt y ’s n o n p e rf o rm a n c e o r b re a c h . . . .” Ho lyf ield , 476 F. Supp. at110. O ne exa m pl e of a one- s i ded agr eementi s one thatal l ow s one p a rt y t o g o to c o u rt , b u t r e s tr ic ts th e o th e r t o a rb itr a tio n . See 

### Pri dgen v . Green Tree Fi

n. Servici ng Corp. , 88 F. Supp. 2d 655, 658 (S. D. Mi ss . 2000) . ¶13 . O ur court s m ay rem edy un con sci on able agreem ents as f oll ow s: “The l aw of

M i s s i s s i ppi i m pos es an obl i gat i on of good f ai th and f undament al fai rness i n the perf

orm ance o f every co ntr act. . . this requ i rem ent i s so p ro n o u n c e d th a t co u rts h a v e th e p o w e r to ref u se to e n fo rc e an y co n tra c t . . . in or dert o avoi d an uncons ci onabl e r es ul t . ” Sect i on 75- 2- 302 of the M i s s i s s i ppi C ode pr ovi des : “I f

the courtas a m att erof l aw fi nds t he contr actt o have be en uncons ci onabl e . . . [ i t ] m ay r ef us e to e nf

or ce the contr act , ori tm ay enf or ce the rem ai nd er of

the co ntr actw i tho ut the u nco nsci on able cl ause, or i tm ay so l i m i tthe appl i cat i on of a ny uncons ci onabl e cl aus e as t o avoi d any u n c o n s c io n a b le re s u lt.” J e ff re y J a c k s o n a n d M a ry M ille r, E n c y c lo p e d ia o f M is s is s ip p i L a w , V o l. 3 , § 

### 21.54 (Mi ss is sippi Prac ti ceSerie s, 2001) ( quoting Ho lyfield, 47 6 F . Supp . at 10 9). ¶ 1 4 . 

### Mis si ss ippiCode Se c ti on 75 - 2- 30 2, a

Unif orm Comm erci alCode provis ion, has bee n app lied b y th is Co urt to contracts o ther thanfor sales o f go od s. Miss. C od e Ann. § 

### 75-2- 302 (Rev . 20 02 ). Se e Brown , 94 9 S o. 2 d at 7 41 ; Ste phens , 91 1 S o. 2 d at 5 25 ; Sanders on Fa rm s, In c . v. G a tlin , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 6 (M iss . 20 0 3 ) (r aisi n g li v esto ck for o w n er). C orbi n on C ontr act s s t at es thatthe uncons ci onabi l i ty “pr ovi s i on has ent er ed the gene r al l aw o f c o n tra c ts a n d h a s b e e n ap p lied to n u m e ro u s tra n sa c tio n s o u tsid e th e c o v e ra g e o f A rticle 2 o f th e U C C .” 7 -2 9 C o rb in o n C o n tra c ts § 2 9 .3 (2 0 0 9 ). T h e o ffic ial c o m m e n t to th e sta tu te sta tes th a t a “ c o u rt, i n its d isc re tio n , m a y r e fu se to e n fo rc e th e c o n tra c t as a w h o le if it is p erm ea ted b y the u n co n scio n ab il ity . . . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -2-3 0 2 c m t. 2 (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). FACTS

### 8

¶15. M i t t i e M oul ds , a s eventy- s i x- year -ol d fem al e, suff eri ng fr om a ho stof m edi cal pr obl ems, w as admi tt ed t o the Pi cayune C onval escentC enter(“nurs i ng ho m e”) on N ovember 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 . M o u ld s re sid e d a t th e n u rsin g h o m e c o n tin u o u sly fro m N o v e m b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 0 , u n til Sept ember20, 2004. T he nur s i ng hom e i s a s ki l l ed nurs i ng f aci l i ty oper at ed by the def endant , C ovenantH eal th. M oul ds w as nei theri nvol ved norpr es entw hen the 2000 admi s s i ons paperw or k w as s i gned. H ers on, J ames B r addock, a ct ed as a “ r es pons i bl e party”
a n d s ig n e d th e a d m is s io n s a g re e m e n t, w h ic h in c lu d e d a n a rb itr a tio n c la u s e . ¶1 6 . In A p ril 2 0 0 2 , a ne w ad m issi o n s ag ree m en t w a s p re se n ted to B ra d d o c k fo r h is sign ature . In a d d it ion to B rad d o ck ’s si g n ature o n the “ R esp o n sible P arty” li n e, M o u lds’s name al s o w as w r i t t en on the “R es i dent ” l i nes . W hetherM oul ds s i gned the 2002 document i s c ont es t ed. T he 2002 a gr eementc ont ai ns c l aus e E 4, w hi ch s t at es thati t“ cons t i tut es t he
e n ti re a g ree m en t . . . an d su p erse d es a ll p ri o r ag ree m en ts, rep rese n tat ion s an d all under s t andi ngs of

the Part i es . ” The agr eemental s o i s s i gned by a “ Faci l i ty R epr es ent at i ve”
a n d two wi tn e s s e s . On S e p t e mb e r2 0 , 2 0 0 4 , M o u l d s wa s tr a n s f e rr e d f r o m th e n u r s i n g h o me t o a l ocal hos pi t al , w her e she di ed on O ct ober2, 2004. B r addock a l l eges thatM oul ds w as in ju re d a t th e n u rs in g h o m e a n d th a t th e s e in ju ri e s le d to h e r h o s p ita liz a tio n a n d d e a th . I S S UES ¶17 . “T he S up rem e C ou rt ’s r eview o n the g ran t of cert i orari s hal l be conduct ed on t he
recor d an d b ri efs previ ou sl y fi l ed in the C ou rtof A pp eal s and o n an y sup plem ental bri efs

### Oth er issues b riefed in clud e: con sideratio n, frau d inthe in du cement, th ird-p arty 3 

### beneficiary, equit abl e e st oppel , a ppar ent authori ty, age ncy, thedef ini ti on of “ hea lt

h care decisio n,” an d th e requ ired sh ow ing of in capacity . The ad missio ns agreem ents inSte phensand Brown ar e ne arly i dentic alto theone 4 

### her e. The arbi trati on clausesin tho se cas es ar e e xac tly thesameas theone he re . In Step hen s, as in t

his ca se , oneagr ee me nt wa s s igne d upon admi ss ion, and another was si gned later. Br o wn , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 3 7 -7 4 0 , 7 4 6 ; Ste phe ns , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 0 -1 1 , 5 2 2 -2 5 . 

### 9 f i l ed. T he S up reme C our tm ay l i m i tthe ques t i on on r evi ew . ” M i s s . R . A pp. P. 17( h) (em ph asi s i n o ri ginal ). W e l i m i tou r r eview i n thi s case t o the f oll ow i ng i ssues: 3 ( 1) W hetherthe t r i al cour terr ed i n denyi ng the M ot i on t o C om pel A rb itratio n b e c a u se th e 2 0 0 2 a d m iss io n s a g re e m e n t as a w h o le i s s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e. (2) W h e th e r th e 2 0 0 2 arb itratio n a g re e m e n t is u n e n fo rc e a b le beca us e the des i gnat ed arbi tr at i on f orum i s unavai l abl e. (3) W hetheran arbitrat i on agreem ent ever cam e i nto ef fectbecau se no one w i th l egal capa ci ty t o bi nd M oul ds executed the a d m is s io n s a g re e m e n t. DI S CU S S I ON ¶18. W e appl y “a de novo s t andar d of r evi ew t o deni al s of

m ot i ons t o compel . ” Br o wn , 949 So. 2d at736 ( ci t i ng Ste

phe ns , 911 So. 2d at513). T he FA A appl i es t o the contr actati s s ue. C o n tr a c t d e fe n s e s , o th e r t h a n s u b s ta n tiv e u n c o n s c io n a b ility , a re in a p p lic a b le h e re . I . W h e th e r th e tr ia l c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in g th e M o tion to C om pe l A r bi t r at i on be c aus e t he 20 02 adm i s s i ons ag r e e m e nt as a w hol e i s s ubst ant i vel y unconsci onabl e. ¶ 1 9 . T h is C o u rt tw ice b e fo re h a s fo u n d th e a d m iss io n s a g re e m e n t a t is su e in th is c a se to be a c ontr actof

adhes i on. See Br o wn , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 4 6 ; Ste phe ns , 911 So. 2d at520. 4 C ontr act s of

adhes i on a r e thos e thatar e “‘ dr af t ed uni l at er al l y by the domi nantparty and then p re se n ted o n a ' tak e -it-o r-le a v e -it' b a sis to th e w e a k e r p a rty w h o h a s n o re a l o p p o rtu n ity to

### E7 sought to l im it theli abi li ty of

thenursin g ho me t o thele ss er of $50, 000 or the 5 

### number o f day s the p atient resid edat th e facilitymultip lied b y th e dailyroo m rate. (No te
– no thing wedo her e m eans that contra cting partie s c annot agr eeon li quidate d damag es. Howeve r, contra ct s inte nded t o excu lpate a party of li abi li ty f

or i ts own negl ige ncedraw rigidjud icial scrutiny. See Turnbough v. Ladner , 75 4 S o. 2d 46 7, 46 9 ( Mi s s . 19 99 ) ) . E8 is a bi late ra l waive r of punitivedama ges . Although E8 oste nsibly is bil at eral , this Court has note d that i t i s one- si ded in pra ctic aleff ec t, as thepati ent

is muc h more l ike ly t o be j ustif ie d in seek ing punitiv e damag es. Ste phens , 91 1 S o. 2 d at 5 23 -24 . C5 re quires thepatie nt and re spons ibl e party to hol d thefa ci li ty har ml es s whe n an 6 

### inj ury c ould hav e bee n avoi ded wi th private -duty care . C5 a ls o re quires thepatie nt and respo nsib le p arty to ind emnifyan d ho ld the facility harmless “from an d ag ainst claims, lo ss, costs andexpen ses in curredas a resu lt o f claims again st th e facility. . . un less su ch claim, loss, co st andexp ense is th e result o f the F acility’s willfu l misco nd uct. ” C8 requir es the patient and re spons ibl e party to hold thef ac il it y harm le ss f

or crim ina l acts, whether commi tt ed by emp loy ees or other s. E5 se ts pre condi ti ons f or arbi tration, re quiring t he patient and re spons ibl e party to subm it to a grie vanc e proc edur e, whilethefa ci li ty c ould go to c ourt with it s di sput es . E6 re quires m edi ation, wi th thepartie s to sharec ost s e qual ly. E12 award s all co sts to th e oth er partyif a partyfails to co mplywiththe arb itrationpro cedures. 10 bar gai n abouti t s t erm s . Such contr act s ar e us ual l y pr epar ed i n pr i nt ed f or m . . . . ’ ” E ast Ford, I nc. v. T aylor , 8 26 So . 2 d 70 9, 7 16 ( M i s s . 2 00 2) ( qu ot i ng Res t a t e ment( Second) of C onf l i ct s § 203 c m t . b ( 1971) ) . T hi s C our ts t at ed i n S teph en s thatfi ndi ng a contr actt o be
o n e o f a d h e sio n d o e s n o t au to m a tica lly m e a n th a t t h e c o n tra c t o r a n y p ro v isio n th e re o f is
s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n c o n s c io n a b le . Ste phe ns , 911 So. 2d at523. H ow ever , s uch a f i ndi ng “makes an ar gum entt ar get i ng a pr ovi s i on f ora s ubs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty r evi ew eas i er t o pr ove . . . . [ T hus , i t ] can make a f aci al l y oppr es s i ve t erm pr es um pt i vel y i nval i d. ” I d. ¶20. Fur ther , eac h t i m e thi s c ontr actha s come bef or e thi s C our t , the l i t i gant s have ur ged addi t i onal t erm s t o be dec l ar ed uncons ci onabl e and une nf or cea bl e. I n Ste

phe ns , c l a u s e s E7
a n d E 8 w e re in v a lid a te d b y th is C o u rt . I d . at523- 24. I n Br o wn , i n a ddi t i on t o E 7 and E8, 5 this C ou rtref

orm ed the con tractt o i nv al i date cl auses C 5, C 8, E 5, E 6, E 12 , E 16 , and the las t s e n te n c e o f th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. Br o wn , 9 4 9 S o . 2 d at 74 1 -42 . C o v en an t H e a lth 6

### E16 atte mpt s to ins ti tut e a one-ye ar statut e of li mi tati ons. The la st se nte nceof the arbi tration agreement refers to o ther unco nscio nab le pro visio ns, E 7 an d E 8. D4 is a sur

viva l c la use , a ll owing e le ven l is te d cl aus es to s urvi ve the t er mination of 7 

### the ag reement an d th e d eatho f anyp arty . E1 3 is a b ilateral waiv er of a rig ht to a “jural” trial. E1 4 sets a $ 3.0 0/p age ch arge fo r co pies requestedbyparties.

8 A 5 aw ar ds C ov enantH eal th al l cos t s ( i ncl udi ng att orney f ees and othercos t

s of 9 l i t igat i on ) if a n a c c o u n t b e c o m e s d e lin q u e n t. 

### 11 c o n c e d e s th a t al l t hes e provi s i ons ar e unenf orce abl e in this ca se. In a p rev iou s cas e b efo re the C ou rtof A pp eal s, C ov enan tH eal th co nced ed the un enforceabi l i ty o f al l these prov i si on s, as w el l as tw o add i t i on al cl aus es , D 4 and E13. Covenant Heal th & R ehab. of

P i cayune, 7 L Pv. E state of

L am bert , 9 8 4 S o . 2 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 7 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ). In a n o ther c ase b efo re the C our tof

A ppeal s , the C our tof

A ppeal s f

ou nds e ve r a l pr ov i s i on s un e nf or c e a bl e , i ncl udi ng E 1 4 , w h ic h w a s h e ld to b e in v io la tio n o f a s ta tu te . B arber , 988 So. 2d at923. 8 ¶21 . I n addi t i on t o the pl et ho ra of provis i on s previ ou sl y ad j udi cat ed uncons ci onabl e and/ or viol at i ve o f s t atute, the ad m i ssi on s agreem entcont ai ns s ever al otherqu est i on able pr ov i si on s. C lau se A 5 is sim ilar to cla u se C 5 in th a t i t w o u ld allo w C o v e n a n t H e a lth to g o to c o u rt to

9 l i t i gat e a di s put e. C l aus e E 9 re qui r es t he pat i entt o s ubm i tany damage r ecove ry t o any thi r dparty p ayo r ( i ncludi ng M edicar e and M edicai d) t o rei m bu rs e the pay or’ s exp enses. C l ause E 1 5 req u ir es th at an y d ispu te reso luti o n o r l egal procee di ngs b e b ro u g h t in th e c o u n ty
w h e re th e fa c ility is lo c a te d . ¶22. T hi s C our ti n Pitt s v. W at kins , 905 So . 2d 55 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ), r ever s ed a gr antof
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f a d e fe n d a n t h o m e in s p e c to r. I d . at55 4. A n arbi trat i on cl ause a n d a lim ita tio n -o f- lia b ility c la u s e w e re fo u n d to b e u n c o n s c io n a b le a n d u n e n fo rc e a b le . I d.

### 12

a t 5 5 8 . T h e a rb itratio n c lau se u n re a so n a b ly fa v o re d th e h o m e in sp e c to r, allo w in g h im to p u rs u e li tig a tio n in c o u rt , w h ile th e c u s to m e r w a s lim ite d to a rb itr a tio n . I d . T h e a ttem p t to sh o rte n th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w a s u n c o n sc io n a b le, b e c a u s e it w a s o p p re ss iv e a n d in
v io la tio n o f a s ta tu te . I d . T he l i m i ton l i abi l i ty a l s o w as unc ons ci onabl e beca us e i tl ef tthe
c u s to m e r w ith o u t a n e ff e c tiv e re m e d y . I

d. A s not ed above, thi s C our ti n Ste phe ns f ound tw o pr ovi s i ons of

the admi s s i ons a gr eementt o be uncons ci onabl e, butal l ow ed enf or cement o f t h e re m a in d e r o f t h e c o n tr a c t. Ste phe ns , 911 So. 2d at523. R ef err i ng t o P itt

s , t he Ste phe ns C o u rt sa id : W e have cons i der ed ourr ece ntd eci si on i n [ P itt s ] an d fin d th a t th is c a se is cl ear l y di s t i ngui s habl e. I n P itt s w e w er e conf

ront ed w i th a contr actw hi ch, i nt eral i a, ( 1) al l ow ed one pa r ty t o the contr actt o go t o courtt o r ecove r d a m a g e s, w h ile th e o th e r p a rty w a s lim ited to a rb itr a tio n , (2 ) a ttem p ted to s hor t en the s t atut e of

l i m i t at i ons , a nd ( 3) l i m i t ed the amount of da m ages one of the part i es coul d ot herw i s e r ecove ras a mat t erof l aw . T he l anguage i n the arbi tr at i on cl aus e i n t oday’ s cas e pal es i n compar i s on t o the oppr es s i ve l anguage cont ai ned i n t he arbi tr at i on cl aus e i n P itt s . I d. a t 5 2 5 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ). ¶23. I n Br o wn , thi s Courtf ound ni ne pr ovi s i ons of the s ame contr actus ed i n Ste phe ns to be uncons ci onabl e, and ci t ed P itt s m ult i ple t i m es i n it s anal ysi s of the u nco nsci on able t erm s. Br o wn , 949 So. 2d a t739- 41. T he Br o wn C our tenf or ced the r emai nderof

the contr act , but
n o t w ith o u t d is s e n t. See id . a t 7 4 1 -4 8 . ¶2 4 . T h e c o n tr ac t atissue co n tai n s u n co n scio n ab le pro v isi o n s tha t m irror tho se fo u n d in P itt s , and se ver al m or e. T he appl i cat i on of bas i c contr actpr i nci pl es l eads thi s C our tt o t he
sam e con cl usi on as that of the l earned tri al j ud ge, consi st ent w i th the “ser i ou s m i sgi vings”

### 13

o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls. W e re a c h th e in e sc a p a b le c o n c lu sio n th a t th e c o n tra c t is
uncons ci onabl e, thus unenf or cea bl e. ¶25. T he arbi tr at i on cl aus e, w hi ch l eads t o court exami nat i on of the contr act of adhes i on, i s n o tth e o n l y u n c o n s c i o n a b l e p r o v i s i o n . T h e a rb i tr a t i o n c l a u s e i t s e l f i n c l u d e s , b y i t s o wn t erm s and b y ref

erence t o o ther provis i on s, several un co nsci on able, no nforum t erm s. “A rbi tr at i on i s aboutc hoi ce of f orum – pe r i od. ” Ste

phe ns , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 5 . H o w e v e r, th is
c o n tra c t h a s w o v e n u n c o n sc io n a b le, n o n fo ru m te rm s in to th e c lau se o ste n sib ly d e sig n e d to es t abl i s h f

orum . T he dr af

t er s of arbi tr at i on cl aus es , w ho trul y see k the bene f i t s of arbi tr at i on, in c lu d in g re d u c tio n o f d isp u te c o sts , w o u ld b e w ise to h e e d th e p rio r p ro n o u n c e m e n ts o f th is C o u rt, su c h a s: N e ith e r is it w ise to a llo w c o m p a n ies to d ra ft a rb itr a tio n c lau se s w ith uncons ci onabl e pr ovi s i ons and then l etthem t ry them out i n t he mar ketpl ace , s ecur e i n the know l edge thatthe court s w i l l atw or s ts everthe of f endi ng [ pr ovi s i ons ] af

t erpl ai nt i f

f s have be en f

or ced “t o j um p thr ough hoops i n or der to in v a lid a te th o s e a g re e m e n ts .” S a n de rs o n Fa r ms , 8 4 8 S o . 2 d a t 8 5 2 (C o b b , J ., d is s e n tin g ; S m ith , P .J ., a n d C a rl s o n , J ., j oi ni ng) ( di s s entw oul d have he l d the arbi tr at i on a gr e e mentuncons ci onabl e; pl ur al i ty di d not addr es s unc on s c i on a bi l i ty, a s i the l d tha tSa nd e r s on Fa r ms h a d wai ve d i t s r i gh tt o c ompel
arbi tr at i on) ( quot i ng Cooperv. M R M I nv. Co. , 19 9 F . S u p p . 2d 77 1 (M .D . T e n n . 2 0 0 2 ),
r ev’ d i n par t

, vacated i n par ton otheris s ues , 367 F. 3d 493 ( 6th C i r . 2004) ) . T hus , w e adopt the ci r cui tcourt ’ s r at i onal e thatthe arbi tr at i on cl aus e s ub j udi ce , coupl ed w i th a mul t i tude
o f u n c o n s c io n a b le p ro v is io n s , m a k e s th is a n u n c o n s c io n a b le c o n tr a c t a s a w h o le . ¶ 2 6 . C o u rts o f o th e r sta tes h a v e re fu se d to e n fo rc e sim ilar co n tra c ts w h ich w e re fo u n d to be subs t ant i vel y unconsc i onabl e. A Fl or i da di s tr i ctcourtof appea l s , i n R om ano v. ManorT he courtal s o f ound thatt he agr eementw as i n vi ol at i on of a Fl or i da s t atut e, t he 10 N ur s i ng H om e R es i dent ’ s R i ght s A ct , a r emedi al s t atut e ena ct ed af t eran i nves t i gat i on s h o w e d su b s ta n tia l a b u s e o f n u rs in g h o m e re s id e n ts . I d. at62-63. T he courtal s o f ound t he agr e e mentp r oc e du r a l l y un c on s c i on a bl e , a s Fl or i da , u nl i ke M i s s i s s i pp i , wi l l n oth ol d an a g re e m e n t u n e n fo rc e a b le u n le s s b o th ty p e s o f u n c o n s c io n a b ility a re p ro v e n . I d. a t 6 2 . 

### 14 Car e, I nc. , 8 61 So. 2d 59 ( Fl a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2003) , r ef us ed t o enf

or ce a n arbi tr at i on a g re e m e n t w h ich re q u ire d a w a iv e r o f p u n iti v e d a m a g e s, lim ited n o n e c o n o m ic d a m a g e s to $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d d is a llo w e d a w a rd s o f a tto rn e y fe e s . I d. at61. T he courtf

ound thatthes e thr ee p ro v is io n s m a d e th e a g re e m e n t “ s u b s ta n tiv e ly u n c o n s c io n a b le to a g re a t d e g re e . . . .” I d. 10
a t 6 2 . ¶27. T he Rom ano a n a ly s is h a s fo u n d fa v o r in o th e r c a s e s . See W oebs e v. Heal

th Car e & R e t . Co r p . o f A m. , 9 7 7 S o . 2 d 6 3 0 (F la. D ist. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ); P rie to v . H e a lth c a re & R e t. Co r p . o f A m. , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d 5 3 1 (F la. D ist. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 5 ); L acey v. Heal thcar e & Ret

. Cor p. o f A m. , 918 So. 2d 333 ( Fl a. D i s t . C t . A pp. 2005) . I n L acey , the c ou r tn ot e d t hat“[ t ] he p rese n ce o f an u n law ful p rov isi o n in an arb itrati o n ag ree m en t m ay serv e to taint th e e n ti re arbi tr at i on agr eement , r ender i ng the agr eementcompl et el y unenf or cea bl e. ” L acey , 918 So. 2d at335 ( quot i ng Pr e s ide ntial Le as ing, I

nc . v. Kro ut , 8 9 6 S o . 2 d 9 3 8 , 9 4 2 (F la. D ist. C t. A pp. 2005) ) . T hatcourtal s o f ound thatthe abs ence of a severa nce c l aus e di s t i ngui s hed L acey f r om pr evi ous cas es i n w hi ch the courtseve r ed unl aw f ul pr ovi s i ons , butthe courtw as m or e per s uaded by the f actthatthe agr eementw as “t i t l ed an ‘ arbi tr at i on and l i m i t at i on of l i abi l i ty agr eement . ’ ” L acey , 918 So. 2d at3 35 . T hi s “s ugges t [ ed] thatthe of f ens i ve l i m i t at i ons of

l i abi l i ty [ w ent ] t o the ‘ es s ence ’ of the contr act . ” I

d. T h e a g re e m e n t in th is case i s si m ply t i t l ed “A rbi trat i on , ” but w eaves i n un con sci on able w ai vers and aw ard l i m i t s. A n o th e r sim ilarity b e tw e e n th e F lo rid a c a se s a n d th is c a se is th e fa c t th a t th e c o u rts

### 15

repeat edly hav e been requi red t o d eal w i th the sam e or very si m i l ar arbitrat i on agreem ents . See W oeb se , 9 7 7 S o . 2 d a t 6 3 4 ; P rie to , 9 1 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 3 3 ; L acey , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d a t 3 3 4 . ¶ 2 8 . T e n n e s s e e a ls o h a s fo u n d s im ila r a g re e m e n ts u n c o n s c io n a b le . Hill v . NH C He a lt hc a r e / Nas hv il le, LLC , 2008 W L 1901198, at*13 ( T enn. C t . A pp. A pr . 30, 2008) ( r equi r ementof

party bri ng i ng the a ct i on t o pay up- f r ontf ees of appr oxi m at el y $18, 000 “pr event s vi ndi cat i on of a st atut ory ri ght ”) . T ennes s ee r i ght l y re cogni zes , as do w e, thatt he purpos e of

a rbi tr at i on i s t o pr ovi de a f orum f ordi s put e r es ol ut i on. I n H ill , the courts t at ed the f ol l ow i ng: W i th r egar d t o s ubs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty, ourSupr eme C ourthas det erm i ned thatan agr eementt o a rbi tr at e, i ncl udi ng one m ade i n the cont ext o f th e p ro v isio n o f m e d ica l se rv ice s, is n o t g e n e ra lly u n c o n sc io n a b le w h e n its pr ovi s i ons do no tal t erl egal dut i es orl i m i tl i abi l i t i es and s i m pl y pr ovi de an al t ernat i ve f

orum f orthe r es ol ut i on of

di s put es . H ow ever , i nequal i ty i n the p ro v isio n s o f su c h a n a g re e m e n t, w h e re th e a g re e m e n t is a n a d h e sio n c o n tra c t, m ay r es ul ti n a f

i ndi ng of uncons ci onabi l i ty. H ill , 2008 W L 1901198, at*12 ( ci t i ng T aylorv. B utler , 1 4 2 S . W . 3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 6 (T en n . 2 0 0 4 ); Bura c z y ns ki v. Eyr ing , 9 1 9 S . W . 2 d 3 1 4 , 3 2 1 (T en n . 1 9 9 6 )). ¶2 9. O t hers t at e cour t s have i nval i dat ed arbi t r at i on a gr e e ment s i n va r i ous t ypes of contr act s . The Supr eme C our tof A l abama f

ound an arbi tr at i on agr eementi ncl uded i n a l oan contr actt o be uncons ci onabl e i n A m er i can G ener al Finance, I

ncor por ated v. B r anch , 793 S o . 2 d 7 3 8 (A la . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e c o u rt a p p lie d th e fa c to rs fr o m its p re c e d e n t c a s e , L ayne v. G ar ner , 612 So. 2d 404 ( A l a. 1992) . T he L ayne fa c to rs a re : ( 1) w hetherther e w as an abs ence of m eani ngf

ul choi ce on one party' s part , ( 2) w hetherthe contr actual t erm s ar e unr eas onabl y f avor abl e t o one party, ( 3) w hetherther e w as unequal b ar gai ni ng pow eramong t he part i es , and ( 4) w hethert her e w er e oppr essi ve, one- s i ded, orpat ent l y unf ai rt erm s i n the c o n tr a c t.

### 16

I d. at40 8. T he co urtheld that the co ntr actw as unco nsci on able f or one o f the p l ai nti ff

s, B ra n c h , b u t n o t th e o th e r, R e a v e s . B r anch , 793 So. 2d at751- 52. T he di s t i ngui s hi ng f act or w a s th a t at th e tim e B ra n c h s ig n e d th e c o n tra c t, itw o u ld h a v e b e e n m u c h m o re d iffic u lt t o obt ai n a l oan w i thouthavi ng t o agr ee t o arbi tr at i on; thus Bra nch had no meani ngf ul choi ce. I d. ¶3 0. A C al i f

orni a c ou r tf

ou nd a n a rbi t r at i on agr eementand ot herpr ovi s i ons of an e m p lo y m e n t c o n tr a c t to b e u n c o n s c io n a b le . S tirlen v. S u p e rc u ts , 51 C al . A pp. 4th 1519, 1552 ( C al . C t . A pp. 1997) . T he courtexpl ai ned i t s anal ys i s as f ol l ow s : “an a dhes i ve contr act

‘ w oul d r emai n f

ul l y enf or cea bl e u nl es s ( 1) al l orpartof the contr actf

el l out s i de the
r eas onabl e expe ct at i ons of the w eake rparty or( 2) i tw as undul y oppr es s i ve or u n co n scio n ab le u n d er a p p li ca b le princ iples o f eq u ity . ’” I d. a t1530 ( quot i ng Izzi v . Me sq u ite Countr y Club , 1 8 6 C al. A p p . 3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 7 (C al. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) (e m p h a sis i n o ri g inal)). T he courtf

ound t he contr acti n Stir le n t o be exc es s i vel y one- s i ded i n thati tal l ow ed the empl oyert o us e the courts ys t em, butr es tr i ct ed the empl oyee t o arbi tr at i on and a s hor t ened
s ta tu te o f l im ita tio n s , n o t s u b je c t to to llin g . I

d. at1542. T he em pl oyee ga ve up s t atut or i l ypr ot ect ed r i ght s thatw oul d have a l l ow ed pun i t i ve damages , w hi l e the empl oyerw as p ro te c te d fr o m lia b ility fo r a ll f ra u d , w illf

u l in ju ry , a n d v io la tio n o f l a w s . I d . I n f i ndi ng t hat the FA A w oul d notbe off ended by nul l i f

yi ng t hi s agr eement , the courts t at ed, “The FA A w as cl ear l y notdes i gned t o s ave an arbi tr at i on agr eementas egr egi ous l y one- s i ded as the one b e fo re u s, w h ich w o u ld n o t su rv iv e sc ru tin y u n d e r le g a l o r e q u itab le p rin c ip les a p p lica b le in al m os tevery A m er i can j ur i s di ct i on. ” I d . a t 1 5 4 6 .

### 17

¶ 3 1 . O th e r s ta te c o u rt s h a v e h e ld a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts to b e u n c o n s c io n a b le . See B olter v. S u peri or Cou rt , 87 C al . A pp. 4th 900, 902, 909 ( C al . C t . A pp. 2001) ( i n carpet - cl eani ng fran ch ise ag ree m en t, ex ce ssive co sts an d li m it ati o n o n d am ag es p rev en ted a rem ed y ); D is cove rB ank v. Shea , 8 2 7 A . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 (N . J. S u p e r. C t. L aw D iv. 20 0 1 ) (cred it -ca rd
a g re e m e n t w a s c o n tra c t o f a d h e sio n w ith u n c o n sc io n a b le p ro v isio n s); I n r e Turner B ros. T r ucking Co. , 8 S .W .3 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 2 (T e x . A p p . 1 9 9 9 ) (e m p lo y m e n t co n tra c t); W ilderv. W hitaker , 169 C al . A pp. 3d 969, 975 ( C al . C t . A pp. 1985) ( empl oym entc ontr acta ti s s ue had b e e n d e te rm in e d to b e a d h e s o ry b y a p ri o r o p in io n o f t h e c o u rt ). ¶ 3 2 . L ik e th e c o u rts lis te d a b o v e , th is C o u rt a lso h a s re fu se d to e n fo rc e u n c o n sc io n a b le
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts o u ts id e th e n u rs in g h o m e a re n a . See P itt s , 905 So. 2d at558 ( hom ein sp e c tio n c o n tra c t); E ast Ford , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d a t7 1 7 ( s a l e o f a u s e d c a r ) . As n o t e d a b o v e , F AA
s ect i on tw o pr event s a courtf r om s i ngl i ng outarbi tr at i on a gr eement s f ors peci al oruni que a n a ly s is . See 9 U .S .C . § 2 ; Ca sa ro tto , 517 U . S. at687. W e al s o have f ound contr act s t o be
u n c o n s c io n a b le f

o rc la u s e s o th e r t h a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts . See E nter gy Mis s . , I

nc. v. B urde tte G in Co. , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ); I n re W il l of Johnson , 351 So. 2d 1 3 3 9 , 1 3 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 7 7 ) (w if e p roh ibit ed from ren o u n cing o r co n test ing h u sb an d ’s w il l) . ¶3 3. O url aw “i m pos es an obl i gat i on of good fai t h and fund am ent al f ai r nes s i n t he per f or m ance of

every con t ractgoverned ther eby . . . . ” Ho lyf ield , 476 F. Supp. at109. C as el aw and l egi s l at i ve ena ctm ent s addr es s r ef us al t o enf

or ce a contr acti n i t s ent i r ety, orany p o rt io n th e re o f, i f i t is fo u n d to b e u n c o n s c io n a b le . Se e M i ss. C od e A nn. § 75- 2- 302( 1) (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ); E ast

Ford , 8 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 7 ; B u rde tte G in , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 8 ; Johnson , 351 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 4 1 ; T

e r r e Ha u te Co o

p e r ag e v. B r a n s c o me , 203 M i s s . 493, 503, 35 So. 2d 493,

### 18

541 ( 1948) . M i s s i s s i ppi and U . S. Supr eme C our tpr ece dentpr ovi de f orthe i nval i dat i on of
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n ts fo r u n c o n s c io n a b ility w ith o u t o ff e n d in g th e F A A . E ast

Ford , 826 So. 2d at711 ( ci t i ng Ca sa ro tto , 5 1 7 U .S . at 6 8 6 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a t th e c o n tra c t in its ent i r ety, a nd thi s a rbi tr at i on a gr eements peci f i cal l y, a r e uncons ci onabl e and une nf or cea bl e. T o do otherw i s e w oul d “r es ul t [ ] i n thi s C our tr ew r i t i ng a cont r actw hi ch f avor s a goal of the nul l i f yi ng party; an undes erved r ew ar d f orunc ons ci onabl e conduct . ” Br o wn , 949 So. 2d at 7 4 8 (5 -4 d e c is io n ) ( R a n d o lp h , J ., d is s e n tin g ). ¶34. T hi s deci s i on does notpr eventnur s i ng homes, orf orthatmat t er , a ny l egal e nt i ty or per s on f r om ent er i ng contr act s thati ncl ude arbi tr at i on agr eement s . O urcourt s w i l l enf or ce arbitrat i on agr eement s w hen they do nots eek t o i m pos e t erm s deemed uncons ci onabl e by th is C o u rt . See B e d

fo rdHe a lth P ro

p s., L L C v. E sta te o

f D a v is , 2 00 8 W L 52 20 59 4, at*4 (M iss . C t. A p p . D e c . 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 ); For es t H il l Nurs ing Ctr. , I

nc. v. McFar lan , 995 So. 2d 775, 7 8 5 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 8 ). ¶35 . A s Bro wn and Ste phe ns dealt w i th nearl y i den t i cal con tract s, t o the extent that tho se rul i ngs ar e i ncons i s t entw i th t oday’ s opi ni on, they ar e overrul ed. II. W h e th e r th e 2 0 0 2 ar b itr a tio n a g r e e m e n t is u n e n fo r c e a b le be c aus e t he de s i gna t e d ar bi t r at i on f or um i s unavai l abl e. ¶36. I n Stephens , th is C o u rt state d , “ A rb itratio n is a b o u t c h o ic e o f f o ru m – p e ri o d .” Ste phe ns , 911 So. 2d at525. I n the admi s s i ons agr eements i gned on A pri l 24, 2002, C ov enan tH eal th p roposed t o h ave an y d i sputes adm i nis t er ed by A A A as f

oll ow s: T he R esi dentand R es pons i bl e Party agr ee thatany and a l l cl ai m s , di s put es and / or contr ov ersies bet w een them and the F aci l i ty o r i t s O w ners, off i cers , di r ect or s orem pl oyees s hal l be r es ol ved by bi ndi ng arbi tr at i on admi ni s t er ed by the A m eri can A rbi trat i on A ssoci at i on and i t s rules and proced ures.A A A H e a lt h c a r e P o li c y S ta te m e n t, 11 http: //w w w . a dr . or g/ s p. a s p? i d=3 2192 ( l as tvi s i t ed J ul y 31, 2009) 

### .

A r c h i v e o f A A A H e a lth c a r e P o licy S tate m e n t , 1 2 http: //w eb. archi ve. org/ w eb/2006 09 30 01 00 34 / http:// w w w . adr. org/ sp. asp?i d= 21 97 5 (l ast v is ite d J u ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 ). 

### 19 T he A A A announce d near l y seve n year s ago thati t“no l ongeracc ept [ s ] the admi ni s tr at i on of c as es i nvol vi ng i ndi vi dual pa t i ent s w i thouta pos t - di s put e agr eementt o a rbi tr at e. ” The 11 A A A c o n tin u e s to ad m in iste r h e a lth -c a re arb itratio n s in w h ich “ b u sin e ss e s, p ro v id e rs, h e a lth
car e compani es , orotherent i t i es ar e i nvol ved on both s i des of the di s put e. ” I

d. T h e AAA
s t at ed thatthe pol i cy w as a pa r tof i t s “ ongoi ng ef

f or t s . . . t o es t abl i s h and enf or ce s t andar ds
o f f a i rn e s s f o ra l t e r n a t i v e d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n . . . . ” T h e S e n i o rVi c e P r e s i d e n to f th e AAA 12
w as quo t ed as fol l ow s: A l tho ug h w e supp ortand adm i nis t er pr e-di s put e arbi tr at i on i n o ther case ar eas, w e thoughti tappr opr i at e t o change ourpol i cy i n thes e ca s es s i nce medi cal pr obl ems ca n be l i f

e ordeath s i tuat i ons and r equi r e s peci al cons i der at i on. I d. ¶3 7 . A n o ther a l t erna te-dispu te-reso luti o n o rga n izati o n , the A m erican H ea lth ca re L aw y ers A ssoci at i on (“A H L A ”), has m ade a si m i l ar anno un cem ent abou thealthcare arbi tr ati on s. O w ens v. N

exion Heal

th at G il m er , I nc. , 2 0 0 7 W L 8 4 1 1 1 4 , at *3 (E . D . T ex . M ar. 19 , 2 0 0 7 ). T h e A H L A a lso h a s a n n o u n c e d th a t itw o u ld a d m in iste r a n a rb itratio n w ith o u t a p o st-d isp u te a g r e e m e n t o n ly if

o rd e re d to d o s o b y a c o u rt . I d. C ov enan tH eal th argue s that A H L A ’s p o li cy i s rel evan tt o this case and s pecu l at es that the A A A i s l i kely t o fol l ow th e A H L A ’s lea d a n d a d m in iste r d isp u tes if o rd e re d to d o so . T h e A A A h a s m a d e n o su c h a n n o u n c e m e n t.

### 20

¶ 3 8 . T h e C o u r to f

Ap p e a l s c o r r e c t l y f

o u n d th a t i t s h o u l d n o t s p e c u l a t e wh e th e rth e AAA
m ig h t a g re e to a d m in is te r t h e d is p u te . Moulds , 2008 W L 38 43 82 0, at*6. H ow ever , t he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls w e n t o n to fin d th a t th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t allo w s th e c irc u it c o u rt to c h o o s e a n a rb itr a to r i f t h e a g re e d fo ru m is u n a v a ila b le . I d. W e do nots har e thi s readi ng. T he l anguage r ef

err ed t o by the C our tof A ppeal s re l at es onl y t o sel ect i on of an arbi tr at orand notm or e gene r al l y t o the choi ce o f f orum o rthe rul es and pr ocedur es t o be ut i l i zed. A s s um i ng ar guendo thatthe f orum w as chose n by the par t i es t o be t he A A A , and i tr ef us ed to a c c e p t th e d isp u te, th is d e fe a ts th e p rim a ry sta ted p u rp o se o f a rb itr a tio n , tha t b e in g to avoi d cr ow ded docket s ( s peed of r es ol ut i on) and i nvol vementof court s ( r educe cos t s of
res olut i on ). T hu s, a co urtsho uld no tb ecom e a party t o redr aft i ng or r eform i ng agreem ents . A cour ts houl d notbe us ed t o r ef or m a contr actt o s el ecta f orum nota nt i ci pat ed by ei therof the p art i es. T o d o so, the co urtm ustbeco m e i nv olved an d a ssum e po w ers ov er par t i es. C our t s ’ i nvol vementi s l i m i t ed t o de t erm i ni ng w hethert o compel agr eed- upon arbi tr at i on vel
non . A s the court ’ s pa r t i ci pat i on a nd i nvol vementi ncr eas e, the r eas on f ora rbi tr at i on i n t he fi rs t p la c e b e c o m e s g re a tly d im in is h e d , a n d its p u rp o s e d e fe a te d . ¶39 . U . S . S up rem e C ou rt and M i ssi ssi pp i preceden t supp ort s this con cl usi on , as f oll ow s: T he U . S. Supr eme C our thas s t at ed that , ' arbi tr at i on i s a m att erof c ontr actand a party cannotbe r equi r ed t o s ubm i tt o arbi tr at i on any di s put e w hi ch he ha s not agr eed t o submi t . ' . . . T he Supre m e C our thas al s o sai d t hat , "s ect i on 4 of the FA A does notconf

era r i ghtt o c om pel a rbi tr at i on of any di s put e atany t i m e; it co n fe rs o n ly th e rig h t to o b tain a n o rd e r d ire c tin g th a t ' ar bi tr at i on pr ocee d i n the m annerpr ovi ded f ori n [ the par t i es '

] agr eem ent .' B .C . R og e rs P o u ltry, In c . v. W e d g e w o rth , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 4 8 3 , 4 8 7 -8 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a sis i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng A T&T T e c h s . , I n c . v. Co mmc ’n s W

o rk e rs o f A m. , 475 U . S. 643, 648,

### 21

1 0 6 S . C t. 14 1 5 , 1 4 1 8 , 8 9 L . E d . 2 d 6 4 8 , 6 5 5 (1 9 8 6 ); V olt Info. S cis. v. B d. of T

rs. , 48 9 U. S. 468, 475, 109 S . C t . 1 2 4 8 , 1 2 5 3 , 1 0 3 L . E d . 2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 7 (1989) ) . In B . C . R og ers Po u ltry , this C our taf f i r m ed the deni al of

a mot i on t o compel arbi tr at i on beca us e t he dis pu t e conce r ned
c o n tr a c ts e n te re d in to b e fo re th e p a rt ie s h a d in s titu te d a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t. I d . at493. I n A T & T T echs . , I nc. , the U . S. Supr eme C our thel d thatarbi tr abi l i ty s houl d be dec i ded b y c o u rt s , n o t a rb itr a to rs . I d . at 65 1 . In V

o lt In fo . S c is . , t he U . S. S upr eme C our thel d t hat
a rbi tr a t i on s s ho ul d b e go ve r ne d b y the rul e s c ho s e n b y the pa r t i e s , no tby FA A - m andat ed
ru le s . I d . at4 76 (Cal i f

orni a s t atut ory rul es appl i ed i n acc or dance w i th the arbi tr at i on ag ree m en t’ s term s). ¶ 4 0 . I n Magnolia Heal thcar e, Inc. v. B ar nes , 9 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 5 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 8 ), a p lu ra lity of thi s C our tw oul d have he l d thatan arbi tr at i on agr eementw as unenf or cea bl e bec aus e the p a rt ie s ’ f

o ru m c h o ic e w a s n o lo n g e r a v a ila b le . I d . at162. I n B ar nes , the arbitr at i on a g re e m e n t c a lle d fo r t h e u s e o f A H L A ru le s , b u t d id n o t re q u ir e A H L A a d m in is tr a tio n . I d. at160. T he pl ur al i ty c i t ed A H L A rul es , w hi ch r equi r e a pos t - di s put e agr eementt o arbi tr at e. I d . T he pl ur al i ty concl uded that , beca us e the pat i ent ’ s i nj ur i es occurr ed af t erA H L A ’ s pol i cy w a s im p le m e n te d , a n d th e re w a s n o p o s t- d is p u te a g re e m e n t, “ther e w as no val i d agr eement t o arbi tr at e. ” I

d . at162. T he B ar nes r at i on a l e a pp l i e s h e r e . A s s umi ng the r e w er e no s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e pr ovi s i ons i n t he agr eement , and furtheras s um i ng C ovenant H eal th p revai l ed o n all otheri ssues, the agreem ent cal l ed forthe A A A t o ad m i nis t er di sputes , a n d th e tri a l co u rt w a s re q u ire d to c h o se an arb itrato r; th e arb itrato r w o u ld still b e b o u n d to a p p ly A A A ru les , w h ich w o u ld re q u ire B ra d d o c k to a g re e , p o st-d isp u te, to b e b o u n d to arbi tr at e, w hi ch he ha s expr es s l y di s avow ed hi s i nt er es ti n doi ng.

### 22

¶41. I n N

a tio n a l Ir a n ia n O il Co . v. A sh la n d O il , 8 1 7 F .2 d 3 2 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ), th e F ifth C i r cui tC our tof

A ppeal s hel d thatan arbi tr at i on agr eementw as unenf or cea bl e bec aus e the
c h o s e n fo ru m w a s n o lo n g e r a v a ila b le . I d. a t 3 2 8 ; s ee al

s o N orth rop G rum m an S h i

p S ys. In c . v. T h e Min istry o

f D e f. o f th e R e p u b lic o f V e n e zu e la , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 9 5 9 4 8 2 (5 th C ir. Ju ly 9, 2009) . N at i on al Ir ani an O i l C o. ( “N I O C ”) dr af t ed the agr eement , w hi ch ca l l ed f or a rb itr a tio n s to o c c u r i n T e h ra n a n d to b e g o v e rn e d b y Ir a n ia n la w . I d . at334. A f

t ert he
re v o lu tio n in Ir a n , N IO C a tte m p te d to in s titu te a rb itr a tio n p ro c e e d in g s in M is s is s ip p i. I d . at 327- 28. ForN I O C t o pr evai l , i tw as r equi r ed t o s how thatthe s i tus w as m er el y a mi nor c o n s id e ra tio n a n d th a t th e e s s e n c e o f t h e b a rg a in w a s to a rb itr a te . I d . at333. H er e, C ovenant H eal th pr es cr i bed A A A admi ni s tr at i on. B oth of the agr eement s i n t hi s cas e ( N ovember2000 and A pr i l 2002) have the s ame l anguage r equi r i ng A A A admi ni s tr at i on. M oul ds r emai ned in th e n u rsin g h o m e fo r tw o y e a rs a fte r th e A A A a n n o u n c e d its n e w p o licy . C o v e n a n t H e a lth
r epl ace d the or i gi na l a gr e e mentw i th anotheragr eementw i th di f f er entt erm s . A dm i ni s tr at i on by the A A A w as a c ontr actr equi r ement , w hi ch r emai ned a pa r tof the agr eement , i f

i tw as o th e rw is e e n fo rc e a b le . ¶ 4 2 . C o v e n a n t H e a lth u rg e s th a t, e v e n if th e c la u s e re q u ir in g A A A a d m in istra tio n is
s tr i cken f r om the contr act , a rbi tr at i on s t i l l s houl d be compel l ed her e. C ovenantH eal th ci t es cl aus e E6, cl ai m i ng thati tof f er s pr oof thatt he par t i es agr eed gene r al l y t o arbi tr at e w i thout reg ard t o w hich or gan i zat i on s ho uld adm i nis t er i t . T his ar gu m ent fai l s fortw o reas on s. It ig n o re s th e fa c t th a t C o v e n a n t H e a lth h a s c o n c e d e d , an d th is C o u rt h a s a g re e d , tha t E 6 is
u n e n fo rc e a b le. It a lso m isre a d s th e lan g u a g e o f E 6 , in w h ich th e p a rt ie s a g re e th a t if

### 23

m ediat i on fai l s, they w i l l “arbi trat e the di spute, cl ai m and / or contr ov ers y as s etf or th bel ow [ i n the arbi tr at i on agr eement . ] ” ¶4 3. T he cour t s of

s e ve r a l othe rs t a t e s ha ve de a l tw i th the A A A / A H LA po l i cy- change i s s ue. W e f

i nd no others t at e courtthathas hel d thatan arbi tr at i on m ay go for w ard i f t he
a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t re q u ir e s A A A a d m in is tr a tio n . See Ma th e w s v. L if e Ca r e Ctrs . o

f A m ., I nc. , 177 P. 3d 867 ( A r i z. 2008) ( enf or ced agr eementt hatre qui r ed A A A arbi tr at or s , butnot A A A a d m in istra tio n ); H ill , 2008 W L 1901198, at*16-17 ( hel d agr eementuncons ci onabl e, b u t d id n o t re a c h o n fo ru m c h o ice ); O w ens v. N at 'l Heal th Cor p. , 263 S. W . 3d 876 ( T enn. 2007) ( courtenf

or ced a gr eementthatcal l ed f orei therA A A orA H L A admi ni s tr at i on, butt he
c o u rt n o ted th a t A H L A w o u ld a d m in iste r if o rd e re d ); B lue Cr os s B lue Shi eld v. R i gas , 923 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 7 ( Al a . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e n f o r c e d a g r e e me n tth a tr e q u i r e d AAA ru l e s , b u tn o tAAA
a d m in istra tio n ); Br o ug hs v il le v. OH ECC , LLC , 2005 O hi o 6733 ( O hi o C t . A pp . 2005) (en forc ed ag ree m en t w h ich c all ed for a n A H L A p roc ed u re). ¶4 4 . H ere , the C o u rto f A p p ea ls h eld tha t the a rbitrati o n ag ree m en t all o w s the circu it co u rt to p ic k a n a rb itr a to r if

th e fo ru m is u n a v a ila b le . Moulds , 2008 W L 3843820, at*6. W e f i nd no bas i s f

ors uch an i nt erpr et at i on of the agr eement . T he agr eementr equi r es thatt he
arbi tr at i on be adm i nis t er ed by the A A A i n a ccor dance w i th the rul es a nd pr ocedur es of that
or gani zat i on. T he l anguage r ef err ed t o by the C our tof

A ppeal s r el at es onl y t o the s el ect i on of an arbi tr at or , notthe over al l rul es and admi ni s tr at i on of the arbi tr at i on. T he rul es of t he organi zat i on r ef

er ence d i n the agr eement , the A A A , r equi r e thati tr ef us e t o admi ni s t er arbi tr at i ons of

thi s type of

cas e, unl es s the part i es agr ee pos t - di spute t o be bound by
arbi tr at i on. T hus , notonl y ar e our co ur t s bei ng as ked t o r ew r i t e the agr eementi n f avorofT he nur s i ng- hom e admi ni s tr at ors ubm i t t ed an a f f i davi ti n w hi ch s he ac know l edged 13 the s i gnatur es on the A dm i s s i ons A gr eementas thos e of M i t t i e M oul ds as r es i dentand Ja m es B r addock a s r es pons i bl e party. H ow ever , B r addock’ s af f i davi ts t at es thatM oul ds w as not pr es ent , and thats he w oul d have bee n un able t o r ead orunder s t and the contr act , i f i thad been pr es ent ed t o her . I n H iny ub , i tw as undi s put ed thatthe pat i ent di d no tsi gn t he arbi tr at i on agr eement , and t hathi s daught erhad s i gned i tf orhi m , al ong w i th hi s ot her a d m is s io n s d o c u m e n ts . I d. at213. 

### 24 the dr af t er , butal s o now t o sel ecta f orum notant i ci pat ed by ei therparty. W e dec l i ne. T he wh o l e p u rp o s e o f

a rb i tr a t i o n i s t o a v o i d d i s p u t e r e s o l u t i o n i n a c o u r to f l a w. I n d e c l i n i n g , we f ol l ow the r at i onal e es pous ed by a pl ur al i ty of thi s C our ti n B ar nes , 994 So. 2d at161- 62. ¶ 4 5 . W e f

i n d th a t Co v e n a n t He a l th s o u g h t t o h a v e i t s d i s p u t e s a d mi n i s t e r e d b y th e AAA. T h a t fo ru m re fu se s to arb itrate w ith o u t a p o st-d isp u te a g re e m e n t. T h e re is n o p o st-d isp u te agr eement . Thi s c our tde cl i nes t o or derthe contr actr ew r i t t en and de cl i nes t o or derthe l ow er c o u r tt o p i c k a f

o ru m. I I I . W h et her an arbi t rat i on agreem ent ever cam e i nt o ef f ect becaus e no one w i t h l egal capaci t y t o bi nd M oul ds e xecut ed th e a d m is s io n s a g r e e m e n t. ¶46. W e choos e not t o addr es s B r addock’ s author i ty t o bi nd hi s m other t o arbi tr at i on, f or i s s ue s o f mat e r i a l f

a c te xi s twhethe rM ou l ds s i gn e d the 2 00 2 c on tr a c t , thu s p r e vent i ng a H iny ub a n a ly s is a t th is s ta g e o f t h e p ro c e e d in g . See Mis s . Car e Ctr. of G r eenvil le, L L C v. H iny ub , 9 7 5 S o . 2 d 2 1 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). 13 ¶47. T he tw o c as es ar e di s t i ngui s habl e i n otherr el evantw ays . I n H iny ub , the arbi tr at i on a g re e m e n t w a s a se p a ra te d o c u m e n t, w h ich sta ted e x p licitly th a t a rb itra tio n w a s n o t a p re c o n d itio n fo r a d m is s io n . I d. at 2 1 8 . H e re , th e n u rsin g -h o m e a d m in istra to r a ss e rte d p o sts ui tthatarbi tr at i on w as nota pre- condi t i on f oradmi s s i on, buts uch a pol i cy i s notf ound
w i thin the contr actw e ar e ana l yzi ng. Fur ther , the H iny ub arbi tr at i on agr eementw as

### The c la use s that sur vivecontra ct

te rm inati on ar e C5, E5, E6, E7, E8, E9, E12, E13, 14 

### E1 4, E 15 , andF. E ach o f these is d escribedabo ve inon e or more of the fo llow ing section s: alre ady de cl ar ed unc onsc iona ble , vi olative of s tatut e, ac knowle dged une nforce abl e, or qu estion able. 25 re s c in d a b le w ith in th ir ty d a y s . I d. T he admi s s i ons a gr eementhe r e, atpar agr aph D , al l ow ed f ort erm i nat i on w i thi n one day of s i gni ng, butr equi r ed an i m m edi at e di s char ge fr om t he f aci l i ty. H ow ever , t he arbi tr at i on cl aus e w as one of el even l i s t ed contr actprovi s i ons that 14
w ere to su rviv e the ad m issi o n s ag re e m e n t, reg ard less o f th e re aso n itw as term inated . In H iny ub , th e a d m is s io n s d o c u m e n ts a t is s u e w e re s ig n e d u p o n a d m is s io n . I d. a t213. H er e, th e “ a d m is s io n s a g re e m e n t” in d is p u te w a s s ig n e d s e v e n te e n m o n th s a ft e r a d m is s io n . CO NC L US I ON ¶ 4 8 . F o r th e re a so n s sta ted , w e re v e rse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d re in sta te and af f i r m the j udgm entof the C i r cui tC our tof Pear l R i verC ounty. T he ca s e i s r emanded to th a t c o u rt fo r f

u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . ¶ 4 9 . T HE J UDGM EN T OF THE COURT OF AP P EA LS I S RE VE RS E D. T HE JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F P E A R L R IV E R C O U N T Y IS RE I NS TA TE D AND A F F I RM ED . W AL LE R, C. J . , CARL S ON, P . J . , DI CKI NS ON, LA M AR, KI TC HENS , AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GRAVE S , P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶ 5 0 . I a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity th a t th e a rb itratio n p ro v isio n h e re is u n c o n sc io n a b le. I w rite
s epar at el y beca us e the maj or i ty addr es s es i s s ues r ai s ed i n the pr i nci pal br i ef s butnoti n t he p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. I w o u ld a d d re ss o n ly th e iss u e s w h ich w e re p u t b e fo re u s in th e p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri.

### 26

¶51. I n the peti t i on , the pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat the C our t of A ppeal s i ncorr ect l y f ound that Jam es B raddoc k p ossess ed the authori ty to bi nd hi s m othert o arbi trat i on . A tM i t t i e M ou l ds’
a dmi s s i on t o the n ur s i ng h ome, Br a dd oc k s i gn e d the a dmi s s i on a gr e e m entas her “R es pons i bl e Party. ” The adm i s s i on agr eementcont ai ned an a rbi tr at i on cl aus e. ¶52. I n Co v e n a n t H

e a lth R e h a b ilita tio n o

f P ica y u n e, L .P

. v. B r o w n , 94 9 S o. 2d 732 ( M i s s . 2007) , and i n Vi c ks bur g P ar tners, L. P. v. Ste phe ns , 91 1 S o. 2d 50 7, 51 6 (M i ss. 20 05 ), this C ou rtdeterm i ned that an el derl y nu rs i ng hom e pat i ent’ s adu l tchi l d, act i ng as a h e a lth -c a re su rro g a te, c o u ld b in d th e p a tien t to a rb itratio n . T h e C o u rt d id n o t sp e c ifica lly
s t at e thatent er i ng an arbi tr at i on agr eementw as a hea l th- car e dec i s i on c ov e r ed by M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e S e c t i o n 4 1 - 4 1 - 2 1 , b u t th a t is th e re su lt o f b o th o p in io n s. T h e sta tu te p ro v id e s: (1 ) A su rro g a te m a y m a k e a h e a lth -c a re d e c isio n fo r a p a tien t w h o is a n a d u lt o r em an c ipa ted m ino r i f th e p ati en t has b ee n d eterm ined b y the p ri m ary phys i ci an t o l ack c apac i ty and no age ntorguar di an has been appoi nt ed orthe agentorguar di an i s notr eas onabl y avai l abl e. M i ss. C od e A nn . § 4 1-41-21 (R ev. 20 05 ). A “health-car e decis i on ” i s defi ned as: ( h) "H eal th- car e dec i s i on" m eans 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 nott o r es us ci t at e; and ( i i i ) D i r ect i ons t o pr ovi de, w i thhol d or w i thdr aw art i f i ci al nutr i t i on and hydr at i on and al l ot herf or m s of heal th car e. M is s . C o d e A n n . § 4 1 -4 1 -2 0 3 (R e v . 2 0 0 5 ).

### 27

¶ 5 3 . I d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo ri ty o f th is C o u rt in a s m u c h a s I a m o f th e o p in io n th a t a deci s i on t o arbi tr at e i s not a he al th- car e dec i s i on. I pr evi ous l y expr es s ed my opi ni on t hat ent er i ng an arbi tr at i on agr eementi s notauthor i zed by the hea l th- car e s urr ogat e s t atut es and th a t a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t e n te re d b y a s u rr o g a te is th e re fo re n o t b in d in g . See Mag n o lia Heal t hcar e, I nc. v. B ar nes , 9 9 4 S o . 2 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ) (G rav es, J. , d issen ti n g ). ¶54. T he C our tof

A ppeal s i n t he i ns t antcas e r el i ed on Covenant Heal th R ehabilitati on o f P ic a y u n e, L .P. v . B r o w n , 949 So. 2d 732 ( M i s s . 2007) , and V i cks burg Part

ners, L . P. v. Ste phe ns , 9 1 1 S o . 2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 6 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ), b u t fa iled to n o te th is C o u rt’s la ter o p in io n in Mis s is s i pp iCar e Cente rof

G r e e nv il

le, LLCv. H

iny ub , 9 7 5 S o . 2 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 8 ). I n thatcas e, w e di s cus s ed Br o wn and Ste phe ns and di s t i ngui s hed them on t he bas i s thatt he arbi trat i on agreem ents i n those cases had b een essenti al part s of the co nsi derat i on fort ho se c o n tr a c ts . H

iny ub , 975 So. 2d 211, 218. A rbi tr at i on had notbeen a nece s s ary pr econdi t i on i n H iny ub . I d. T her e, the admi s s i ons agr eementcl earl y st at ed thatthe exe cut i on of the
arbi tr at i on agr eementw as nota pr econdi t i on t o the f urni s hi ng of

s ervi ces t o the pat i entby th e n u rs in g h o m e . Id . T hi s C our ti n H iny ub hel d that , s i nce the s urr ogat e w as notr equi r ed t o s i gn the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on pr i ort o the pat i ent ’ s admi s s i on t o the faci l i ty, then the
s u rr o g a te la c k e d th e a u th o ri ty to b in d th e p a tie n t to a rb it r a ti o n . Id . I n s um , the rul e af t er H iny ub i s that the surr og at e can b i nd the pat i ent t o arbi trat i on on l y if the arbi trat i on cl ause i s a nec es s ary, non-ne got i abl e el ementof the ent i r e admi s s i on contr act . I f the arbi tr at i on c lau se is n o t a r e q u ire d p a rt o f th e c o n tra c t, th e n th e su rro g a te c a n n o t b in d th e p a tien t to a rb i tr a t i o n . W h i l e I d o n o ta g r e e wi th th i s c u rr e n ts t a t e o f th e l a w, i tn e v e r th e l e s s i s th e l a w.

### 28

¶5 5 . H ere , the arb itrati o n c laus e w as n o t a re q u ir ed p rov isi o n o f th e c o n tr ac t. T h e p lai n ti ffs
s ubm i t t ed an a f

f i davi tf r om an admi ni s tr at oratthe C ovenantN ur s i ng H om e w ho s t at ed that the pat i entw oul d have bee n adm i t t ed t o the f aci l i ty even i f

the arbi tr at i on agr eementhad been r ef us ed. T he admi ni s tr at or st at ed thatC ovenantneverr ef us ed pat i ent s bas ed on a
re fu sa l to c o n se n t to th e a rb itratio n p ro v isio n . T h e a ffia n t sta ted th a t t h e s u rr o g a te c o u ld have opt ed outof

the arbi tr at i on cl aus e w i thoutcons equenc e. T hi s cas e s houl d s i m pl y be deci ded bas ed on H

iny ub . H e n c e , I c o n c u r i n re s u lt o n ly .