Summary Of The Hayes V. Oakridge Case

In the state of Ohio, the courts have taken a pro-business approach, at least regarding the nursing home industry, as is evidenced, by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case, the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home, an Ohio nursing home, by a former resident, Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home, she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence by the nursing home staff. Oakridge entered a motion seeking a stay of the court proceedings because, Hayes had signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any malpractice claims she might assert against Oakridge would be resolved
Jake Damasiewicz is the grandson of John, and is also his appointed legal guardian. On January 8, 2018, they visited the Caregood Nursing home in Indiana to pursue the possibility of residency for John. During this visit, and while Jake was touring the facility, the Caregood Nursing home office manager informed John that he would need to sign an admission form and some medical papers to secure admission to the facility. John signed the papers and Jake was unaware and never notified by the nursing home that John signed any forms. On January 9, 2018, John was admitted to the facility. On January 12, 2018, John wandered out of the facility and was struck by a vehicle, and died. The Damasiewicz family filed a lawsuit against the Caregood Nursing home for negligence. The Caregood Nursing home filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and transfer the dispute to an arbitration panel, since John signed an arbitration agreement. It would seem that on the surface, the Hayes v. Oakridge case would be a controlling precedent, as the Caregood Nursing home attorney claimed. However, there are several interesting differences between these cases that I believe should prohibit the court from following the Hayes v. Oakridge case as precedent. First, is that the hypothetical case, is governed by the laws of the state of Indiana, the state in which John was domiciled. This is important, but not necessarily enough to change the Indiana court’s ruling from the Hayes v. Oakridge case. Nevertheless, I will make note of it, since the courts in Indiana are generally not required to follow the decisions of the courts of another state, though it is typical for the courts of one state to look to decisions of other states as influential statements of what the law should be in the state making the decision, where prior precedent