AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An eighty-one-year-old man was admitted to a nursing home for therapy after breaking his hip. His wife, holding a durable power of attorney, signed the admission paperwork, which included an arbitration agreement specifying that any legal disputes would be settled by arbitration governed by the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) rules. After leaving the nursing home with additional health issues and another broken hip, the man passed away. The personal representative of his wrongful death estate filed a claim against the nursing home and its Director of Nursing for wrongful death and negligence (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Carl J. Butkus, District Judge: Denied the nursing home's motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration clause does not bind the Wrongful Death Act beneficiaries acting through a personal representative (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate): Argued that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable because the designated arbitrator, NAF, is unavailable (para 6).
• Defendants-Appellants (Nursing Home and Director of Nursing): Contended that the designation of NAF and its rules is ancillary at best and allows for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the unavailability of the designated arbitrator (NAF) renders the arbitration agreement unenforceable (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the nursing home's motion to compel arbitration (para 14).

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge (James J. Wechsler, Judge, Michael E. Vigil, Judge concurring): The court concluded that the designation of NAF was integral to the arbitration agreement. Given NAF's unavailability to arbitrate, which both parties agreed upon, the agreement was rendered unenforceable. This decision was supported by the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Rivera, which established that an arbitration agreement is not enforceable if the designated arbitrator is unavailable and the designation of the arbitrator is integral to the agreement. The court found that the agreement's mandatory language and specific reference to NAF rules and procedures made NAF's designation integral. The court also determined that there was no need for remand for further discovery on the issue, as the interpretation of the contract and the agreement to arbitrate were matters of law suitable for de novo review (paras 4-13).