Tennessee Health Management, Inc. v. Carol J. Rousseau Johnson, as personal representativeof the estate of Dolores J. Rousseau, deceased

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/09/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1080762 T e n n e s s e e H e a l t h Management, I n c . v. C a r o l J . Rousseau J o h n s o n , as p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the e s t a t e o f D o l o r e s J . Rousseau, deceased Appeal LYONS, from Madison C i r c u i t (CV-08-900469) Justice. T e n n e s s e e H e a l t h Management, in Court an a c t i o n p e n d i n g f r o m an o r d e r plaintiff's denying claims. I n c . ("THM"), i s a d e f e n d a n t i nthe Madison C i r c u i t Court. I t appeals i t s motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n We r e v e r s e and remand. of the 1080762 I. Dolores Millennium J. on January ("Dolores") 26, 2008, Barbara Dolores's admission admission forms legal to i n the various the representative, that family Dolores admission ever forms admitted to patient objected a signed by M i l l e n n i u m f o r Barbara signed the of the patient's responsible party, the the resident/family, the family or the member. ("Barbara") capacities or hip-replacement On J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , required the f a c i l i t y . representative, responsible following Rousseau n u m e r o u s f o r m s on D o l o r e s ' s b e h a l f resident's was 1 i s o p e r a t e d b y THM. daughter representative, History and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C e n t e r ( " M i l l e n n i u m " ) i n Millennium Dolores's and P r o c e d u r a l Rousseau Nursing Huntsville surgery. Facts legal There representative, i s no e v i d e n c e to Barbara's on h e r b e h a l f or that i n c o m p e t e n t when s h e was a d m i t t e d signing Dolores to Millennium. or the indicating the various was mentally Dolores was D o l o r e s was t h e o r i g i n a l p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s a c t i o n . After her death, her daughter Carol J . Rousseau Johnson, the p e r s o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f h e r e s t a t e , was s u b s t i t u t e d a s t h e plaintiff. The f i n a l o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t on S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , b o r e t h e c o r r e c t s t y l e o f t h e c a s e ; we h a v e u s e d t h e same s t y l e a s d i d t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h b e a r s t h e name o f t h e s u b s t i t u t e d p l a i n t i f f . The p l a i n t i f f ' s name was a l s o s p e l l e d a l t e r n a t i v e l y i n t h e r e c o r d Delores. 1 2 1080762 discharged from Millennium s i x days later, on February 1, 2008. The financial following agreement Barbara signed contained the definitions: " 1 . ' R e s i d e n t ' means t h e i n d i v i d u a l who i s o r w i l l be r e s i d i n g i n t h e f a c i l i t y a n d i n c l u d e s w h e r e applicable a legal representative appointed to act on b e h a l f o f t h e r e s i d e n t . (Examples: conservator, l e g a l g u a r d i a n , p e r s o n w i t h power o f a t t o r n e y ) . " 2 . ' F a c i l i t y ' means M i l l e n n i u m N u r s i n g & R e h a b Center. "3. 'Resident Representative' means the individual, who a l o n g w i t h t h e r e s i d e n t , should r e c e i v e n o t i c e s and o t h e r communications c o n c e r n i n g the r e s i d e n t . "4. ' R e s p o n s i b l e P a r t y ' i s any i n d i v i d u a l or organization who personally assumes financial responsibility for the resident's financial o b l i g a t i o n s under t h i s agreement. ... " The financial agreement specified would charge f o r Dolores's covered pay by t h e d a i l y rate, r e s i d e n t " covered financial financial obligations by to the daily stay, l i s t e d identified Medicare, items rate and s e r v i c e s n o t Dolores as a " p r i v a t e and e x p l a i n e d Millennium. Millennium Barbara Dolores's signed the a g r e e m e n t a b o v e a l i n e on w h i c h was p r i n t e d t h e t e r m "Legal representative." 3 1080762 Barbara Resolution" addition also signed ( " t h e ADR an " A g r e e m e n t t o A l t e r n a t i v e agreement"). to requiring binding The arbitration, ADR also Dispute agreement, provided: "1. P a r t i e s t o t h e Agreement: The p a r t i e s t o t h i s Agreement are M i l l e n n i u m Nursing & Rehab C e n t e r , i n c l u s i v e of i t s employees and/or a f f i l i a t e s , which w i l l be c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e ' F A C I L I T Y , ' and Dolores Rousseau, their [sic] health care d e c i s i o n maker o r s u r r o g a t e , o r any r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h a t i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i f i e d b e l o w , who w i l l b e c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as t h e ' R E S I D E N T . ' The p a r t i e s agree t h a t t h e u n d e r s i g n e d i n d i v i d u a l s have the legal authority to bind their respective parties. "2. V o l u n t a r y Nature of t h i s Agreement: RESIDENT and F A C I L I T Y a g r e e t h a t t h i s A g r e e m e n t i s e n t e r e d i n t o on a v o l u n t a r i l y [ s i c ] b a s i s . The R E S I D E N T u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t t h e y have a c h o i c e of long-term c a r e p r o v i d e r s a n d t h a t o t h e r n u r s i n g f a c i l i t i e s may or may not use a r b i t r a t i o n and/or m e d i a t i o n t o resolve disputes. By s i g n i n g b e l o w , t h e RESIDENT a g r e e s t h a t t h e F A C I L I T Y i s n o t r e q u i r i n g them [ s i c ] to s i g n t h i s Agreement and u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t they [sic] may be admitted to the FACILITY without e n t e r i n g i n t o t h i s Agreement. ... fi "5. Not a C o n d i t i o n of Admission: RESIDENT'S s i g n i n g t h i s Agreement (agreeing t o submit d i s p u t e s t o ADR) i s not a c o n d i t i o n of admission to the F A C I L I T Y ; and t h e d e c i s i o n t o s i g n t h i s Agreement i s s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f RESIDENT. "6. Opportunity t o Seek C o u n s e l : The signature b e l o w o f RESIDENT i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e F A C I L I T Y h a s a d v i s e d RESIDENT, t h e i r [ s i c ] h e a l t h c a r e decision m a k e r , a n d / o r f a m i l y members t h e y may s e e k l e g a l 4 in 1080762 counsel p r i o r t o s i g n i n g , e n t e r i n g i n t o and/or being bound by t h i s Agreement. RESIDENT i s e n c o u r a g e d t o a s k q u e s t i o n s o r s e e k l e g a l c o u n s e l i f t h e y [ s i c ] do not understand any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of this Agreement. "16. B i n d i n g E f f e c t : I t i s the intention of the RESIDENT a n d t h e F A C I L I T Y t h a t t h i s A g r e e m e n t s h a l l i n u r e t o t h e b e n e f i t o f and b i n d t h e FACILITY, i t s affiliated entities, management companies, administrators, owners, officers, shareholders, members, representatives, governors, directors, medical d i r e c t o r s , employees, t r u s t e e s , successors, a s s i g n s , agents, a t t o r n e y s and i n s u r e r s ; and s h a l l inure to the benefit of and b i n d t h e RESIDENT, his/her agents, attorneys, d i r e c t and t h i r d party beneficiaries, insurers, heirs, trustees and representatives, including the personal representative, administrator, or executor of h i s / h e r e s t a t e , and h i s / h e r spouse and c h i l d r e n . " (Capitalization alternative i n original.) signature conservator/guardian, care, or other The ADR lines durable legal for power agreement the i f any; d e c i s i o n - m a k e r ; o r f a m i l y member r e s p o n s i b l e Barbara line signed provided h e r name t o t h e ADR a g r e e m e n t f o r the family resident; of attorney representative, member contained the f o r health health-care f o rthe resident. on t h e s i g n a t u r e responsible f o r the resident. On May 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , next friend, sued THM Dolores, acting and r e l a t e d 5 through entities. Barbara The as h e r complaint 1080762 alleges that while Dolores suffered dehydration, blockage, and and THM motion, wantonness, moved to Rose, the that on J a n u a r y executed Rose breach director the t h a t t h e ADR stated that interstate of and Huntsville Dolores and THM an Member one stay i n which the motion an affidavit she at to to stated is on for documents involved located in Tennessee. compel trial arbitration. stated: court "My m o t h e r , D o l o r e s R o u s s e a u , was admitted to a n d was a p a t i e n t o f H u n t s v i l l e H o s p i t a l f o l l o w i n g a hip replacement surgery. My mom was not ambulatory and h e r d o c t o r s had i n d i c a t e d t h a t upon h e r d i s c h a r g e f r o m H u n t s v i l l e H o s p i t a l she needed twenty-four (24) h o u r n u r s i n g a n d m e d i c a l c a r e due 6 from Millennium. Millennium the the agreement of the r e s i d e n t of to who Responsible Millennium opposed submitted opposition Dolores's of affidavit t h e ADR a g r e e m e n t was i s a corporate anguish alleging support Millennium, signed "Family that abdominal claims In in commerce she of c o n t r a c t . agreement 2008, B a r b a r a as stated arbitration. ADR an as w e l l as m e n t a l i n conjunction with admitting Dolores also Barbara the Dolores RESIDENT" and and executive 25, infection, Dolores compel i t submitted of a urinary-tract distress. Lisa behalf a r e s i d e n t of M i l l e n n i u m , other b o d i l y i n j u r i e s , emotional negligence, was in 1080762 to s e l f - c a r e d e f i c i t s . The e m p l o y e e s a t H u n t s v i l l e Hospital made a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r my m o t h e r t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o M i l l e n n i u m N u r s i n g and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Center. U p o n a r r i v a l , I was g r e e t e d b y a n e m p l o y e e who p r e s e n t e d me w i t h a d m i s s i o n d o c u m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t . At that time, I d i d not h a v e a p o w e r o f a t t o r n e y o v e r my m o t h e r , n o r d i d I h a v e a n y l e g a l b a s i s f o r s i g n i n g my m o t h e r ' s name, or obligating her contractually. The a d m i s s i o n p a p e r w o r k was n e v e r presented t o my m o t h e r . I s i g n e d my own name t o t h i s a g r e e m e n t , a n d I s i g n e d i n my own p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y . My m o t h e r n e v e r w a s given an opportunity to sign the admission documents, n o r d i d she s i g n them. My m o t h e r n e v e r g a v e me a n y i n s t r u c t i o n s t o s i g n on h e r b e h a l f . I signed i n my own i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , and n o t pursuant to any instructions or other legal authority. My m o t h e r was n o t p r e s e n t w h e n t h e a d m i s s i o n documents and t h e a r b i t r a t i o n agreement w e r e p r e s e n t e d t o me." The trial February On death file court denied 12, 2009. July 2, THM 2009, on J u n e 7, 2 0 0 8 . a motion pursuant the trial it had court. not approximately d i s c o v e r e d new e v i d e n c e Dolores of to arbitration. death was THM notified I t then to Rule made year filed t o compel arbitration on appealed. In support been one THM's m o t i o n this filed 60(b), Court a motion after of Dolores's f o r leave to A l a . R. C i v . P., of that motion, aware of THM s t a t e d Dolores's death with that for i t occurred and t h a t i t had regarding Barbara's authority to bind I t i s undisputed and that 7 Dolores's t h a t no s u g g e s t i o n estate was not 1080762 substituted that as t h e p l a i n t i f f because motion i t had t o compel instead discovered arbitration and because of Dolores. new was decided had d i e d , had been the decedent's estate as a p p e l l e e instead the appeal taken, this should Court allow THM t o move f o r r e l i e f light of the newly d i s c o v e r e d party t o be s u b s t i t u t e d a s t h e p l a i n t i f f . THM's m o t i o n trial court motion. was THM granted f o r leave and g r a n t e d stated as filed t h e same resulted a Rule the t r i a l the appeal court's This order Court 60(b) motion court leave to in granted with the t o r u l e on t h e J . Rousseau Johnson, motion an personal deceased amended alleged claims during as of Dolores J . Rousseau, of the estate complaint severely stay before well. amended c o m p l a i n t so of Dolores the t r i a l party s u b s t i t u t i o n of a l s o moved t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e r e c o r d ; t h a t representative amended of a e v i d e n c e and t o a l l o w t h e p r o p e r to f i l e On J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 0 9 , C a r o l ("Carol"), from no argued because i t s i n favor who was there evidence, THM as complaint essentially against the d i d the i n i t i a l same THM. facts complaint. The and The a d d s t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t D o l o r e s was i n j u r e d her stay i n her death at Millennium on J u n e 7, 8 2008. that those injuries 1080762 THM renewed i t s motion supported not only with affidavit, but also with signed also t o compel the ADR agreement Rose's i n the course of admitting Dolores to Millennium. THM 60(b)(6) motion denying i t s motion t o compel forrelief arbitration. any r e s p o n s e t o t h e renewed m o t i o n t o c o m p e l the and had a Rule documents which i t Barbara filed the other arbitration, Rule 60(b)motion. After a from Carol the order d i d not f i l e arbitration orto the t r i a l court hearing, d e n i e d THM's R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 6 ) m o t i o n on S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 . When the then trial court submitted resumed j u r i s d i c t i o n over II. a return to this Court, we the case. Standard o f Review " ' T h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s de n o v o t h e d e n i a l o f a motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n . P a r k w a y Dodge, I n c . v. Y a r b r o u g h , 779 So. 2 d 1205 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A motion to compel a r b i t r a t i o n i s analogous t o a motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . TranSouth F i n . Corp. v. B e l l , 739 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 0 , 1114 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . The p a r t y s e e k i n g t o compel arbitration has t h e burden o f proving the existence of a contract c a l l i n g f o r a r b i t r a t i o n and p r o v i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t e v i d e n c e s a transaction affecting interstate commerce. Id. "[A]fter a motion t o compel a r b i t r a t i o n has been made a n d s u p p o r t e d , t h e b u r d e n i s on t h e n o n - m o v a n t to p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e supposed arbitration agreement i s n o t v a l i d o r does n o t a p p l y t o t h e dispute i n question." J i m Burke Automotive, Inc. v. Beavers, 674 S o . 2 d 1 2 6 0 , 12 65 n.1 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing).'" 9 1080762 Elizabeth 2003) 277, Homes, 280 v. Gantt, Fleetwood (quoting L.L.C. Enters., (Ala. sign argues t h e ADR I n c . v. Bruno, that represented someone who because Dolores had Analysis Barbara agreement Barbara f o r Dolores herself the had the apparent legal d i d not on authority because, they the admission authority object to when a d m i s s i o n d o c u m e n t s on h e r b e h a l f . that 784 S o . 2 d 2000)). III. THM 882 S o . 2 d 3 1 3 , 315 ( A l a . and signed the Barbara The ADR a g r e e m e n t r e c i t e s " i n c l u s i v e of i t s employees and/or and the "Resident," of that further defined individual states that as D o l o r e s identified the parties " o r any below." "agree The that individuals have t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t y t o b i n d parties." Barbara provided signed f o r the signature for the resident. the financial Barbara agreement, t h e ADR as D o l o r e s ' s 10 representative legal agreement the undersigned their respective i n the member signed defined affiliates," ADR agreement of the family had a l s o as Dolores t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e agreement a r e t h e " F a c i l i t y , " as M i l l e n n i u m , argue, documents bind to another block responsible document, representative. 1080762 THM relies on this Court's B e v e r l y E n t e r p r i s e s Alabama, In Carraway, Richard when he a d m i t t e d home. One which Richard his sister, action i n Carraway 978 S o . 2 d 27 signed (Ala. 2007). a number o f documents Carraway, was arbitration agreement, sister's authorized as an his to a nursing After Shirley died, Richard f i l e d a wrongful- against the nursing trial Richard appealed, arguing t h a t no v a l i d arbitration existed because Shirley never holding that court the agreement. the arbitration agreement t o compel The the nursing disagreed, home's m o t i o n home. granted Court v. Shirley o f t h e documents representative. death Inc., Carraway signed decision signed arbitration, Shirley's estate signed by R i c h a r d . We and agreement This was b o u n d stated: " J u s t as R i c h a r d signed a l l the other documents r e l a t i n g to S h i r l e y ' s admission into the nursing home on Shirley's behalf, Richard signed the a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t on S h i r l e y ' s b e h a l f e x p r e s s l y as an 'authorized representative.' Apparent a u t h o r i t y ' i s i m p l i e d where t h e p r i n c i p a l p a s s i v e l y permits the agent t o appear t o a t h i r d person t o have the authority t o a c t on [ h e r ] behalf.' T r e a d w e l l Ford, Inc. v. Courtesy Auto B r o k e r s , I n c . , 426 S o . 2 d 8 5 9 , 8 6 1 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . 'It i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l be e x e r c i s e d so long as t h a t right actually exists.' Wood C h e v r o l e t Co. v . Bank o f t h e S o u t h e a s t , 352 S o . 2 d 1350, 1352 ( A l a . 1977). There i s no evidence indicating that Shirley had any objection to R i c h a r d ' s a c t i n g on h e r b e h a l f i n a d m i t t i n g S h i r l e y 11 by 1080762 t o t h e n u r s i n g home. ... The a r b i t r a t i o n did not call for the signature of representative; instead, i t provided that duly authorized by the Resident' could a g r e e m e n t on t h e r e s i d e n t ' s b e h a l f . " 978 So. 2d The ADR at in 30-31. facts in agreement admitting this are case concerning similar. Barbara Dolores to Millennium, various representative signed Dolores representative "any individuals i t who states signed t o be that the she person could intervention thereby the the agent to authority to act on without act ("Apparent authority 'is 12 agreement agreement See implied the as individual." agreed that legal the authority requirement the that reasonable possible without the Dolores's to behalf, i s , therefore, implied. agreement, i n w h i c h no on Barbara her the Because Dolores enjoyed admission passively permitted authority 30 an the that parties under circumstances consider of bound by of documents ADR agreement have the into Millennium sign anything, The of the to bind t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s . ease of c h e c k i n g execution a l l the capacities. the p a r t y or the i n c l u d i n g t h e ADR s p e c i f i c a l l y defined Furthermore, agreement a legal 'a p e r s o n sign the behalf, she appear and to THM Barbara's C a r r a w a y , 978 where the to have apparent So. 2d at principal 1080762 passively have permits the authority Treadwell 2d 859, Ford, 861 Carol Barbara agent to I n c . v. relies to the the appear on fact document o b l i g a t i n g she ever objected to Brokers, person Inc., of on 426 evidence to s i g n the behalf. indicating admission herself t o pay Barbara's having Dolores f o r the ever signed days, no remained a c c e p t i n g the b e n e f i t s of the objection is Dolores or q u e s t i o n . evidence As indicating was the the the admission necessity home." 978 So. 2d 31. 13 for an s e r v i c e s rendered without i n Carraway, t h a t [ D o l o r e s ] had at treating for six [ B a r b a r a ] ' s a c t i n g on h e r b e h a l f i n a d m i t t i n g nursing that Millennium case at signed services, with dispensing Instead, on i n d i c a t i n g t h a t upon e n t e r i n g her agreement. that documents t h a t M i l l e n n i u m was charge, So. instruct her d o c u m e n t s , o r t h a t she u n d e r s t o o d without to (quoting d i d not documents a f t e r her admission any third behalf.'" that Dolores absence time a 1983))). h e r b e h a l f , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e M i l l e n n i u m o r any Auto admission i n s t r u c t e d Barbara to [her] Courtesy upon the sign to act ( A l a . C i v . App. Notwithstanding Dolores the any "[t]here o b j e c t i o n to [Dolores] to the 1080762 Carol also argues agreement because when Barbara subject the that she d i d n o t s i g n signed i t . Dolores Barbara's i f a n y , may be to could Wright, 971 s o . 2 d 681 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . held that responsible party ineffective to bind distinguishable upon a claims, n o t be f o r c e d Carol Court b y t h e ADR i t a n d s h e was n o t p r e s e n t claims. this relies i s n o t bound C a r o l a r g u e s , b u t as a n o n s i g n a t o r y to arbitration, agreement, Dolores Noland Health to arbitrate her Services, In Noland, a p l u r a l i t y of daughter-in-law's signature on a n u r s i n g - h o m e a r b i t r a t i o n the resident from t h i s I n c . v. as t h e a g r e e m e n t was t o t h e agreement. Noland i s case, however, because t h e n u r s i n g - home r e s i d e n t i n N o l a n d was m e n t a l l y incompetent and c o u l d n o t authorize behalf anyone daughter-in-law her to d i d not sign mother-in-law's Carol attorney also over a c t on legal argues any document and or Barbara any d i d n o t have other S h i r l e y e x e c u t e d a power o f a t t o r n e y authority to the nursing the i n the capacity of legal home t o a c t on h e r b e h a l f . 14 a power o f authority c o n t r a c t u a l l y b i n d D o l o r e s t o t h e ADR a g r e e m e n t . admitted because representative. that Dolores her In Carraway, a few weeks a f t e r that gave The C o u r t to Richard found s h e was further that her 1080762 execution of suggesting the that power Shirley h e r b e h a l f when he a t 31. the The of agreement Barbara Dolores's legal a attorney in had the Barbara signed indicating her her admission further evidence brother's acting 978 documents. on 2d agreement i n Carraway d i d not legal representative; executed did not case is not likewise, require The the absence fatal to our the admission that Dolores call for the ADR signature of a of that at the Barbara of power conclusion documents i n view of the passively permitted So. time evidence to act on behalf. valid contract contract circumstances, calling evidenced commerce. The trial compel a r b i t r a t i o n . address the other for a THM valid has THM arbitration court erred B e c a u s e we arguments the and existence proved affecting in reverse relied denying that by a the interstate the motion on t h a t b a s i s , we on of to need THM. Conclusion s a t i s f i e d i t s burden arbitration proved transaction IV. a was apparent a u t h o r i t y to bind Dolores Under these not the of representative. this Barbara attorney approved signed arbitration signature of agreement. 15 of showing the We conclude existence that the of trial 1080762 court erred i n denying accordance trial and this THM's m o t i o n w i t h t h e ADR a g r e e m e n t . court's order denying remand t h e case t o compel We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e t h e the motion f o r further arbitration i n t o compel proceedings arbitration consistent with opinion. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Cobb, and C . J . , and S t u a r t , Smith, Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . Woodall, J . , dissents. 16 Bolin, Parker, Murdock,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.