Judge asks for briefs in dispute over nursing-home arbitration clause and power-of-attorney

A civil case over post-admission releases at a local nursing facility prompted a detailed exchange in Clinton County Circuit Court about whether arbitration clauses and powers of attorney can be used to preclude judicial review.

Bill Barner, attorney for the facility (identified on the docket as LP Albany/Clinton County Care and Rehab), told the court his client sought to compel arbitration and had filed the motion accordingly. Opposing counsel raised two substantive objections: (1) the admission agreement, as signed, identified a non‑existent entity — “Clinton County Care and Rehab LLC” — rather than the actual registered operator, and (2) the power of attorney in the resident’s file does not specifically grant the attorney-in-fact the right to waive statutory or constitutional rights.

“We signed a contract with an LLC that doesn’t exist,” opposing counsel said in argument, pressing that misnaming could defeat the arbitration clause. Barner and other defense counsel responded that the operative business had been held out under a doing-business-as name and argued that courts generally enforce arbitration clauses if the parties manifested intent.

The presiding judge reviewed the competing legal points and flagged broader policy concerns about whether nursing-home admission contracts should be treated as effectively mandatory for residents. The judge described the issue as troubling: “I don’t like it,” the presiding judge said, criticizing the practical effect of mandatory admission terms in some facilities.

Counsel debated applicable law; defense counsel cited decisions interpreting arbitration provisions and the court discussed the Federal Arbitration Act and parallel state rules. The judge asked both sides to submit a short, focused brief on two narrow questions: (a) whether the arbitration clause is enforceable when the agreement names a different or nonexistent LLC and (b) whether the power of attorney present in the record grants the attorney-in-fact authority to waive the resident’s rights. The judge asked counsel to include relevant case law and to hone their arguments for the court’s review.

Court action: the court continued the matter and ordered simultaneous short briefs from the parties focused on the LLC/arbitration question and the scope of the power of attorney; no final ruling on arbitration or the contract’s enforceability was issued at the hearing.

The judge said she would take the briefs under advisement before ruling and signaled sensitivity to the public-policy implications if courts allow admission forms to strip residents of judicial remedies.

The dispute highlights recurring issues in long-term-care litigation: corporate ownership/DBA structures, the specific wording of admission agreements, and whether an attorney-in-fact may contract away a resident’s access to court under state or federal arbitration law.