Opinion ID: 1258147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: VI: Arbitration

Text: Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, any action, dispute, claim, or controversy of any kind ( e.g., whether in contract or in tort, statutory or common law, legal or equitable, or otherwise) now existing or hereafter arising between the parties in any way arising out of, pertaining to or in connection with the provision of health care services, any agreement between the parties, the provision of any other goods or service by the Health Care Center or other transactions, contracts or agreements of any kind whatsoever, any past, present, or future incidents, omission, acts errors, practices, or occurrence causing injury to either party whereby the other party or its agents, employees or representatives may be liable, in whole or in part, or any other aspect of the past, present, or future relationships between the parties shall be resolved by binding arbitration administered by the National Health Lawyers Association (the NHLA). [1] On January 1, 2004, the AHLA amended its rules for arbitrating health care liability claims. Under the new rules, the AHLA would only arbitrate claims pursuant to arbitration agreements entered into after the alleged injury occurred. The parties did not modify the admission contract to reflect the AHLA policy change. On January 11, 2005, Grant fell and sustained a large hematoma above her left eye. Five days later, Grant died as a result of this injury. Respondent instituted this action against Appellants for survival, wrongful death, and loss of consortium. Appellants filed a motion to enforce arbitration and stay the proceedings. Respondent contested Appellants' motion on the grounds that the AHLA no longer arbitrated personal injury claims arising under pre-injury arbitration agreements and that the arbitration clause was therefore unenforceable. Appellants argued in reply that Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allowed for the appointment of a replacement arbitrator when the designated arbitrator became unavailable. Following oral arguments, the circuit court entered an order denying Appellants' motion to enforce arbitration and stay the proceedings. In reviewing the arbitration agreement, the circuit court found that the AHLA had become unavailable as an arbitrator, found that the designation of the AHLA as arbitrator was a material term of the agreement, and declined to appoint a new arbitrator because there would no longer be a meeting of the minds between the parties. Appellants present the following questions for review: I. Did the circuit court err in finding the arbitration agreement void and unenforceable because of the unavailability of the designated arbitrator? II. Did the circuit court err in failing to appoint a substitute arbitrator or in failing to allow the parties to consent to a substitute arbitrator in accordance with Section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act?