Stover, N. v. Wilmac Healthcare Inc. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • J-A18027-15
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    NANCY J. STOVER, EXECUTRIX OF THE              IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    ESTATE OF HORACE W. STOVER,                          PENNSYLVANIA
    DECEASED
    Appellee
    v.
    WILMAC HEALTH CARE, INC., D/B/A
    LANCASHIRE HALL, WILMAC
    CORPORATION; BROCKIE HEALTHCARE,
    INC.; MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER, PA,
    LLC, ET AL.
    APPEAL OF: MANORCARE OF LANCASTER
    PA, LLC., ET AL.
    Appellants             No. 1286 MDA 2014
    Appeal from the Order entered July 7, 2014
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
    Civil Division at No: CO-13-06519
    BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:                       FILED JUNE 18, 2015
    This appeal is from an order overruling preliminary objections to
    compel arbitration of claims brought under the Wrongful Death and Survival
    Acts.1 The claims arise from the death of Horace W. Stover, after he was a
    resident at a nursing home operated by Appellants (collectively, ManorCare).
    ____________________________________________
    1
    Respectively, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8301 and 8302. Though the order is
    interlocutory, we have jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7320. See
    Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8).
    J-A18027-15
    The wrongful death claims are not subject to arbitration, because a
    decedent’s agreement to arbitrate is not enforceable against the decedent’s
    wrongful death beneficiaries.         Taylor v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 
    113 A.3d 317
    , 320 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citing Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, 
    77 A.3d 651
    , 654 (Pa. Super. 2013)). In addition, the Survival Act claims must
    be joined with the wrongful death claims, Pa.R.C.P. No. 213(e), and
    requiring joinder does not violate the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2.
    
    Taylor, 113 A.3d at 326-28
    .
    We decided Taylor after the principal briefs were filed in this case. In
    its Reply Brief,2 ManorCare contends Taylor was wrongly decided, but
    concedes that it controls.       We agree.       See, e.g., Regis, Inc. v. All Am.
    Rasthskeller, Inc., 
    976 A.2d 1157
    , 1161 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quotation
    omitted) (“It is beyond the power of a Superior Court panel to overrule a
    prior decision of the Superior Court.”).           Therefore, based on Taylor, we
    affirm the order overruling ManorCare’s preliminary objections.
    Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    ____________________________________________
    2
    The Reply Brief is untimely. Appellee has not objected. We exercise
    discretion to excuse the untimely filing. See Pa.R.A.P. 105(a).
    -2-
    J-A18027-15
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 6/18/2015
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1286 MDA 2014

Filed Date: 6/18/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/18/2015