Davis, L. v. HCR Manorcare (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S09005-16 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LORRAINE L. DAVIS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF: JOHN J. HUDSON, DECEASED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HCR MANORCARE, LLC; MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER PA, LLC D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES – LANCASTER; MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. A/K/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; MANOR CARE, INC.; HCR MANORCARE, INC.; HCR IV HEALTHCARE LLC; HCR III HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCR II HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCRMC OPERATIONS, LLC; HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC; THE LANCASTER GENERAL HOSPITAL AND LANCASTER GENERAL HEALTH APPEAL OF: HCR MANORCARE, LLC; MANOR CARE OF LANCASTER PA, LLC D/B/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES – LANCASTER; MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. A/K/A MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; MANOR CARE, INC.; HCR MANORCARE, INC.; HCR IV HEALTHCARE LLC; HCR III HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCR II HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCR HEALTHCARE, LLC; HCRMC OPERATIONS, LLC; HEARTLAND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC No. 507 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered February 25, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Civil Division at No(s): CI-14-06658 J-S09005-16 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., and JENKINS, J. JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 21, 2016 Appellee, Lorraine H. Davis, as executrix for her father, John L. Hudson’s estate, instituted the instant action against Appellant business entities (collectively “ManorCare”), which collectively own and operate a nursing home facility known as ManorCare Health Services – Lancaster. In her complaint, Davis asserted causes of action for survival, wrongful death, and punitive damages. Manorcare filed preliminary objections, seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement it had with Hudson. On February 19, 2015, the trial court denied ManorCare’s preliminary objection and refused to transfer the case to arbitration. ManorCare filed this timely, interlocutory appeal as of right. See Gaffer Insurance Company, Ltd. v. Discover Reinsurance Co., 936 A.2d 1109, 1110 n. 2 (Pa. Super. 2007). On appeal, ManorCare conceded that this panel was bound to affirm based upon Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal granted, 122 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2015). Appellants’ Motion for Summary Affirmance. See However, they sought to preserve their argument regarding arbitration pending the outcome of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s decision in Taylor. See id. After reviewing the briefs of the parties and the record, we agreed that Taylor controlled, and affirmed and dismissed Manorcare’s motion for summary affirmance as moot. -2- J-S09005-16 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted Manorcare allowance of appeal on this issue. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reversed Taylor. See Taylor, 147 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2016). Appellee concedes that under these circumstances, “this matter should be remanded back to the trial court for arbitration-related discovery and further proceedings.” See Appellee’s Brief, at 3. Order reversed. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with Taylor. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 12/21/2016 -3-
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.
