Opinion ID: 1643348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 6. In determining the validity of a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, courts generally conduct a two-pronged inquiry. Under the first prong, the court should determine whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate the dispute. Rogers-Dabbs Chevrolet-Hummer, Inc. v. Blakeney, 950 So.2d 170, 173 (Miss.2007) (citing East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor, 826 So.2d 709, 713 (Miss.2002)). The first prong has two considerations: (1) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement and (2) whether the parties' dispute is within the scope of the arbitration agreement. Taylor, 826 So.2d at 713. Finding there is no valid arbitration agreement, our analysis will be short shrift. ¶ 7. The arbitration provision in the February 19, 2003, admission agreement provides: It is understood and agreed by the Facility and Resident and/or Responsible Party that any legal dispute, controversy, demand or claim (hereinafter referred to as claim or claims) that arises out of or relates to the Admission Agreement or any service or health care provided by the Facility to the Resident, shall be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration ... in accordance with the American Health Lawyers Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Service Rules of Procedure for Arbitration, which are hereby incorporated into this agreement....  Information regarding AHLA and/or its arbitration services and rules is available at: American Health Lawyers Association, 1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. XXXXX-XXXXX, Phone: (202) 833-1100/ Fax: (202) 833-1105, www.healthlawyers.org or American Health Lawyers Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Service, 1666 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009, Phone (202)-387-4176/Fax (202) 478-5155, e-mail: adr@healthlawyers.org. ¶ 8. American Health Lawyers Association Alternative Dispute Resolution Service Rule of Procedure 1.01 © 1991 (Rev. 2003) reveals the following: Applicability of Rules: The parties shall be bound by these Rules whenever they have agreed in writing to arbitration by the Service or under the Rules. The Service will administer a consumer health care liability claim under the Rules on or after January 1, 2004 only if all of the parties have agreed in writing to arbitrate the claim after the injury has occurred and a copy of the agreement is received by the Service at the time the parties make a request for a list of arbitrators. For purposes of the Rules, a consumer health care liability claim means a claim in which a current or former patient or a current or former patient's representative (including his or her estate or family) alleges that an injury was caused by the provision of (or the failure to provide) health care services or medical products by a health care provider or the manufacturer, distributor, supplier, or seller of a medical product. (Emphasis added). ¶ 9. A review of the complaint reveals consumer health care liability claims dated after January 1, 2004. The complaint seeks remedy for injuries occurring first on January 15, 2005, and then on June 17, 2005. ¶ 10. It is undisputed that the parties did not agree to arbitrate the claim after the injury occurred, as required by the rules which were incorporated into the admissions agreement at the behest of Magnolia. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that, `arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed to submit.' B.C. Rogers Poultry, Inc. v. Wedgeworth, 911 So.2d 483, 487-88 (Miss.2005) (quoting AT & T Techs., Inc. v. Commc'ns. Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986)). ¶ 11. Finding that no agreement to arbitrate was entered into after January 15, 2005, for this Court to review, the inescapable conclusion is that there was no valid agreement to arbitrate. ¶ 12. While the circuit court based its decision to deny arbitration on reasons different from ours, we may on appeal affirm the decision of the trial court where the right result is reached, even though we may disagree with the trial court's reasons for reaching that result. Pass Termite & Pest Control, Inc. v. Walker, 904 So.2d 1030, 1032 (Miss.2004) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration. ¶ 13. AFFIRMED. SMITH, C.J., AND CARLSON, CONCUR. DIAZ, P.J., AND LAMAR, J., CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY. WALLER, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN RESULT. DICKINSON, J., CONCURS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY WALLER, P.J., AND LAMAR, J. GRAVES, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY DIAZ, P.J. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.