Case Name: Elvedia ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; Central Park Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Health Services of Lakeland at Oakbridge; and Integrated Health Services Development, Inc., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2001-11-28
Citations: 805 So. 2d 982
Docket Number: No. 2D01-2344
Parties: Elvedia ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; Central Park Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Health Services of Lakeland at Oakbridge; and Integrated Health Services Development, Inc., Appellees.
Judges: NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 805
Pages: 982–982

Head Matter:
Elvedia ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES, INC.; Central Park Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Health Services of Lakeland at Oakbridge; and Integrated Health Services Development, Inc., Appellees.
No. 2D01-2344.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 28, 2001.
Mathew L. Bahl of The Philpot Law Group, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.
James G. Lindquist of Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Slother & Sleet, Tampa, for Appel-lees.

Opinion:
PARKER, Acting Chief Judge.
Elvedia Eldridge appeals from a nonfi-nal order granting the amended motion to stay action and motion to compel arbitration of appellees Integrated Health Services, Inc.; Central Park Lodges, Inc., d/b/a Integrated Health Services of Lake-land at Oakbridge; and Integrated Health Services Development, Inc., in Eldridge's action for negligence and violation of nursing home residents' rights. We affirm the trial court's order.
Eldridge contended in the trial court the admission contract she entered into with the appellees was unconscionable and that, therefore, the arbitration clause in the contract was unenforceable. She cites Powertel, Inc. v. Bexley, 743 So.2d 570, 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), review denied, 763 So.2d 1044 (Fla.2000), for the proposition that a party must establish both procedural and substantive unconscionability in order to invalidate an arbitration clause. We affirm the trial court's ruling that, under the facts of this case, the admission contract was not procedurally unconscionable. Like the trial court, we do not reach the issue of substantive unconscionability because Eldridge failed to establish the necessary element of procedural unconsciona-bility. See id. Because these are the only issues Eldridge raises regarding the validity of the arbitration clause, we do not address whether any other basis exists to hold the arbitration clause unenforceable.
Affirmed.
NORTHCUTT and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.