Oklahoma Supreme Court: FAA preempts state ban on nursing‑home arbitration; affirms compelled arbitration in Thompson v. Hartway

OKLAHOMA CITY — The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Oct. 7, 2025, affirmed a trial court order compelling arbitration in Beverly Thompson, next friend of Charlene Hughes, v. Hartway Corporation d/b/a Memorial Heights Nursing Center, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the Oklahoma Nursing Home Care Act (NHCA) where the admissions agreement expressly invoked federal law and the record reflected interstate‑commerce connections.

Thompson, acting under a durable power of attorney for resident Charlene Hughes, sued the nursing center for alleged medical negligence arising from the resident’s stay. Upon admission, Thompson signed an admissions packet that included a separate, two‑and‑a‑half‑page “agreement to arbitrate” that stated disputes “shall be resolved through arbitration” and explicitly provided that federal law, including the FAA, would govern the clause.

The district court in McCurtain County granted the nursing home’s motion to compel arbitration after a hearing and stayed the judicial proceedings. The Oklahoma Supreme Court reviewed the record de novo and concluded the agreement was validly executed, noting that the agreement bore signatures from an authorized nursing‑center agent and the resident’s legal representative. “The court finds there was an agreement signed by an agent of the defendant and a person with authority as power of attorney,” the opinion states.

The legal representative argued four defects: (1) the nursing center did not validly execute the agreement; (2) the NHCA’s statutory ban on pre‑dispute arbitration in the nursing‑home setting barred enforcement; (3) the agreement did not involve interstate commerce so the FAA would not apply; and (4) the agreement was unconscionable or procured by fraud. The Supreme Court rejected each argument.

On preemption, the court explained that a state law that singles out arbitration for disfavored treatment is displaced by the FAA. The opinion relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including Marmet Healthcare Center v. Brown and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, to conclude that categorical prohibitions on arbitration are preempted when the FAA covers the agreement. The court wrote that, to the extent Bruner v. Timberlane had held otherwise, Bruner must be limited to “purely local transactions” and cannot survive Marmet’s guidance.

Addressing the interstate‑commerce question, the opinion credited evidence submitted by the nursing center — including an affidavit from regional director Susie Balcom and supporting receipts — showing the facility obtained food, medicine and durable medical supplies from vendors outside Oklahoma. The court concluded those facts, taken together, satisfied the FAA’s “involving commerce” scope as interpreted by federal precedent.

The court also rejected the representative’s unconscionability claims. She had argued the admission packet was one‑sided, that she believed she had to sign the packet to secure admission, that she may not have read the arbitration provision and that the clause required sharing arbitration costs. The opinion noted the arbitration agreement was a freestanding, specifically labeled document in the packet, that the representative initialed an acknowledgment listing the agreement, and that no evidence of fraud, duress or other contract‑invalidating conduct was shown.

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and denied the request for oral argument. The opinion cautioned that its holding does not address the enforceability of arbitration clauses against wrongful‑death beneficiaries who never signed such agreements; a separate concurrence stressed the decision should not be read to require enforcement in wrongful‑death claims where the statute or facts differ.

Case details: Beverly Thompson, next friend of Charlene Hughes v. Hartway Corporation d/b/a Memorial Heights Nursing Center, Case No. 121922. Decision date: Oct. 7, 2025. Trial court evidentiary hearing date on the motion to compel: June 7, 2023. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration.

The opinion cites and discusses Bruner v. Timberlane Manor, Marmet Healthcare Center v. Brown, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Weaver, and related Oklahoma precedents when analyzing preemption, commerce clause reach, and unconscionability. The opinion also notes the representative did not dispute that the signature on the agreement was hers, although she stated she did not recall signing the documents.