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

• The case involves a wrongful death and negligence suit arising from Eulalia M. Pantoja-Gonzales' (Resident) stay at Kindred Hospital—Albuquerque (the Facility). The Resident's son signed an arbitration agreement on her behalf during her admission to the Facility in November 2017. Later, Helen Lopez, as the personal representative of the Resident's estate, filed a lawsuit for wrongful death and negligence against the Facility and Kate Zilar (collectively, Defendants).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Denied Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants: Argued that the Resident's son had the authority to agree to arbitration, the agreement was not unconscionable, issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator, and Defendants’ claims fell within the scope of the Agreement.
• Plaintiff: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Resident's son had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement on her behalf.
• Whether the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
• Whether issues of arbitrability were delegated to the arbitrator.
• Whether Defendants’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to deny Defendants' motion to compel arbitration.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, found that the arbitration agreement did not clearly and unmistakably delegate gateway issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator, thus the district court did not err in deciding these issues (paras 5-10). On the merits, the court agreed with the district court that the Resident's son lacked agency authority under the terms of the Resident’s advance health-care directive at the time he signed the Agreement on her behalf, affirming the district court's decision (paras 11-24).