The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has ruled against a healthcare facility's attempt to compel arbitration in a wrongful death case. This decision affects the estate of Glendon Smalling, whose family claims that negligent treatment at the facility led to her death. The ruling emphasizes the importance of timely actions in legal proceedings, particularly regarding arbitration agreements.
The case, titled Estate of Glendon Smalling v. 2990 Holme Operating, LLC, was filed under docket number 2172 EDA 2025. The court's decision was issued on June 30, 2026, by Judge Stevens, affirming a lower court's ruling that denied the facility's request to compel arbitration.
Background
The dispute began when Sierra Smalling and Sharese Smalling, the adult children of Glendon Smalling, filed a complaint on January 22, 2024. They claimed that their mother suffered from neglect while at the Immaculate Mary Center for Rehabilitation and Healthcare, operated by 2990 Holme Operating, LLC. The family alleged that this neglect resulted in severe health issues, including pressure wounds and malnutrition, ultimately leading to Glendon Smalling's death on January 9, 2023.
Initially, the Appellees filed a complaint that included counts for professional negligence, survival action, and wrongful death. The case progressed through various stages, including the filing of amended complaints and preliminary objections from the defendants. However, the issue of arbitration was not raised until much later in the proceedings.
On March 21, 2025, after months of litigation, the defendants filed a petition to compel arbitration, claiming that an Admission Agreement signed by Sharese Smalling included a binding arbitration clause. They argued that this clause should govern the dispute arising from the alleged negligence at the healthcare facility.
The Ruling
The court ruled that the defendants had waived their right to enforce the arbitration agreement by engaging in the judicial process for an extended period without raising the issue. Judge Stevens noted, "A party that avails itself of the judicial process by attempting to win favorable rulings from the judicial system following the filing of a complaint waives the right to proceed through arbitration."
The trial court found that the defendants had waited fourteen months after the initial complaint was filed to request arbitration. This delay, combined with their active participation in the litigation process, constituted a waiver of their right to compel arbitration. The court emphasized that the Appellants had engaged in discovery and filed preliminary objections without mentioning arbitration.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for wrongful death cases and arbitration agreements in Pennsylvania. It reinforces the principle that parties must act promptly to enforce arbitration clauses. The court's decision indicates that waiting too long to assert such rights can lead to a waiver, which could affect other similar cases in the future.
The ruling also highlights the importance of judicial efficiency. By allowing the case to proceed through the courts for an extended period, the defendants not only delayed the process but also caused additional expenses for the plaintiffs. The court noted that the plaintiffs had been prejudiced by the defendants' delay, as they had to invest time and resources in litigation that could have been avoided if arbitration had been pursued earlier.
What's Next
The defendants may consider appealing the decision, but the court's ruling is a strong affirmation of the lower court's findings. There is no indication of a related case pending that would affect this ruling. As it stands, the case will continue in the trial court, where the plaintiffs will pursue their claims against the healthcare facility.