General
Evonne K. WERT, Executrix of the Estate of Anna E. Kepner, Deceased v. MANORCARE OF CARLISLE PA, LLC d/b/a ManorCare Health Services-Carlisle; HCR ManorCare, Inc; Manor Care, Inc.; HCR Healthcare, LLC; HCR II Healthcare, LLC; HCR III Healthcare, LLC; HCR IV Healthcare, LLC: GGNSC Gettysburg, LP, d/b/a Golden Living Center-Gettysburg; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, LLC; GGNSC Holdings, LLC; Golden GATE National Senior Care, LLC; GGNSC Equity Holdings, LLC; GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC. Petition of GGNSC Gettysburg LP, d/b/a Golden Living Center-Gettysburg; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, LLC; GGNSC Holdings, LLC; Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC; GGNSC Equity Holdings, LLC and GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC
95 A.3d 268·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·2014·PA
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Evonne K. WERT, Executrix of the Estate of Anna E. Kepner, Deceased v. MANORCARE OF CARLISLE PA, LLC d/b/a ManorCare Health Services-Carlisle; HCR ManorCare, Inc; Manor Care, Inc.; HCR Healthcare, LLC; HCR II Healthcare, LLC; HCR III Healthcare, LLC; HCR IV Healthcare, LLC: GGNSC Gettysburg, LP, d/b/a Golden Living Center-Gettysburg; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, LLC; GGNSC Holdings, LLC; Golden GATE National Senior Care, LLC; GGNSC Equity Holdings, LLC; GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC. Petition of GGNSC Gettysburg LP, d/b/a Golden Living Center-Gettysburg; GGNSC Gettysburg GP, LLC; GGNSC Holdings, LLC; Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC; GGNSC Equity Holdings, LLC and GGNSC Administrative Services, LLC.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
June 24, 2014.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 24th day of June 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are:
(1) Whether the Superior Court’s decision in Stewart v. GGNSC-Canonsburg, L.P., 9 A.3d 215 (Pa.Super.2010), holding that the NAF Designation voided an identical Arbitration Agreement, was incorrectly decided and should be reversed, where there is no evidence indicating that the NAF designation was integral to the Agreement?
(2) Whether the Court may ignore undisputed testimonial evidence that the party seeking to void the Agreement did not consider the NAF Designation to be an “integral part” of the Arbitration Agreement (because she did not read the agreement)?
. This issue has been abbreviated because, as stated verbatim, it was unnecessarily argumentative.