SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., ET AL. 11–391 v. CLAYTON BROWN ET AL. CLARKSBURG NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, DBA CLARKSBURG CONTINUOUS CARE CENTER
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., ET AL. 11–391 v. CLAYTON BROWN ET AL.
CLARKSBURG NURSING HOME & REHABILITATION
CENTER, LLC, DBA CLARKSBURG CONTINUOUS
CARE CENTER, ET AL. 11–394 v. SHARON A. MARCHIO, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF PAULINE VIRGINIA WILLETT
ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
Nos. 11–391 and 11–394. Decided February 21, 2012
PER CURIAM.
State and federal courts must enforce the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., with respect to all arbitration agreements covered by that statute. Here, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, by misreading and disregarding the precedents of this Court interpretingthe FAA, did not follow controlling federal law implementing that basic principle. The state court held unenforce- able all predispute arbitration agreements that apply toclaims alleging personal injury or wrongful death against nursing homes.
The decision of the state court found the FAA's coverageto be more limited than mandated by this Court's previous cases. The decision of the State Supreme Court of Appeals must be vacated. When this Court has fulfilled its duty tointerpret federal law, a state court may not contradict orfail to implement the rule so established. See U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2.
2 MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER v. BROWN
Per Curiam
I
This litigation involves three negligence suits against nursing homes in West Virginia. The suits were broughtby Clayton Brown, Jeffrey Taylor, and Sharon Marchio. In each case, a family member of a patient requiring extensive nursing care had signed an agreement with a nursing home on behalf of the patient. The relevant partsof the agreements in Brown's case and Taylor's case were identical. The contracts included a clause requiring the parties to arbitrate all disputes, other than claims to collect late payments owed by the patient. The contracts included a provision holding the party filing the arbitration responsible for paying a filing fee in accordance withthe Rules of the American Arbitration Association fee schedules. The agreement in Marchio's case also includeda clause requiring arbitration but made no exceptions tothe arbitration requirement and did not mention filingfees.
In each of the three cases, a family member of a patient who had died sued the nursing home in state court, alleging that negligence caused injuries or harm resulting indeath. A state trial court dismissed the suits by Brownand Taylor based on the agreements to arbitrate. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia consolidated those cases with Marchio's, which was before the court on other issues.
In a decision concerning all three cases, the state courtheld that “as a matter of public policy under West Virginialaw, an arbitration clause in a nursing home admissionagreement adopted prior to an occurrence of negligence that results in a personal injury or wrongful death, shall not be enforced to compel arbitration of a dispute concerning the negligence.” Brown v. Genesis Healthcare Corp., No. 35494 (W. Va., June 29, 2011), App. to Pet. for Cert.in No. 11–391, pp. 85a–86a (hereinafter Pet. App.). The state court considered whether the state public policy was
Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 3
Per Curiam
pre-empted by the FAA. The state court found unpersuasive this Court's interpretation of the FAA, calling it “tendentious,” id., at 51a, and “created from whole cloth,” id., at 53a. It later concluded that “Congress did not intend for the FAA to be, in any way, applicable to personalinjury or wrongful death suits that only collaterally derive from a written agreement that evidences a transactionaffecting interstate commerce, particularly where the agreement involves a service that is a practical necessityfor members of the public,” id., at 84a. The court thus concluded that the FAA does not pre-empt the state pub-lic policy against predispute arbitration agreements thatapply to claims of personal injury or wrongful deathagainst nursing homes.
The West Virginia court's interpretation of the FAA wasboth incorrect and inconsistent with clear instruction in the precedents of this Court. The FAA provides that a “written provision in . . . a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction. . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save uponsuch grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U. S. C. §2. The statute's text includes no exception for personal-injury or wrongful-death claims. It “requires courts to enforce the bargain of the parties toarbitrate.” Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 217 (1985). It “reflects an emphatic federal policy infavor of arbitral dispute resolution.” KPMG LLP v. Cocchi, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3)(quoting Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U. S. 614, 631 (1985); internal quotation marks omitted).
As this Court reaffirmed last Term, “[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type ofclaim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting ruleis displaced by the FAA.” AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concep4
MARMET HEALTH CARE CENTER v. BROWN
Per Curiam
cion, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 6–7). That rule resolves these cases. West Virginia's prohibition against predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is a cate- gorical rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type ofclaim, and that rule is contrary to the terms and coverageof the FAA. See ibid. See also, e.g., Preston v. Ferrer, 552
U. S. 346, 356 (2008) (FAA pre-empts state law granting state commissioner exclusive jurisdiction to decide issuethe parties agreed to arbitrate); Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 514 U. S. 52, 56 (1995) (FAA preempts state law requiring judicial resolution of claims involving punitive damages); Perry v. Thomas, 482 U. S. 483, 491 (1987) (FAA pre-empts state-law requirementthat litigants be provided a judicial forum for wage disputes); Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U. S. 1, 10 (1984) (FAA pre-empts state financial investment statute's prohibition of arbitration of claims brought under that statute).
II The West Virginia court proposed an “alternativ[e]” hold- ing that the particular arbitration clauses in Brown's case and Taylor's case were unconscionable. Pet. App.89a–91a, 94a. See also id., at 98a (not addressing thequestion whether the arbitration agreement in Marchio'scase is unenforceable for reasons other than public policy).It is unclear, however, to what degree the state court'salternative holding was influenced by the invalid, categorical rule discussed above, the rule against predispute arbitration agreements. For example, in its discussion of the alternative holding, the state court found the arbitration clauses unconscionable in part because a predispute arbitration agreement that applies to claims of personalinjury or wrongful death against nursing homes “clearlyviolates public policy.” Id., at 91a.
Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2012) 5
Per Curiam
On remand, the West Virginia court must considerwhether, absent that general public policy, the arbitrationclauses in Brown's case and Taylor's case are unenforce- able under state common law principles that are not specific to arbitration and pre-empted by the FAA.
* * * The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia is vacated,and the cases are remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
22-02-2012 00:00
Richiedi una Consulenza