The Appellate Court of Illinois ruled on October 14, 2026, in the case of McLean v. Living, No. 2-26-0174, addressing the validity of an arbitration agreement in a wrongful death lawsuit. The court's decision affects the estate of Jane King McLean, who died in July 2023 while residing at Cary Senior Living, LLC. The ruling clarifies the enforceability of arbitration agreements in healthcare settings, particularly when signed by a legal representative.
Samuel McLean, as the independent executor of his mother’s estate, filed a lawsuit against Cary Senior Living, LLC, and others, alleging wrongful death and negligence related to Jane's care. The defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that McLean had agreed to arbitration when he signed the establishment contract and arbitration agreement on behalf of his mother. The trial court denied their motion, leading to the appeal.
The dispute centers on whether McLean had the authority to sign the arbitration agreement as Jane's healthcare power of attorney. The defendants contended that the arbitration provision was a binding part of the establishment contract, while McLean argued it was not necessary for Jane's admission to the facility and thus unenforceable.
In its ruling, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, stating, "The arbitration agreement was an integral part of the establishment contract and a prerequisite to admission." The court emphasized that by signing the establishment contract, McLean agreed to all its terms, including the arbitration clause. Justices Jorgensen, Hutchinson, and Mullen concurred in the judgment.
The court's analysis highlighted that the arbitration agreement was clearly defined within the establishment contract. It noted that the contract explicitly stated that compliance with all terms, including the arbitration agreement, was required for residency at the facility. The court also pointed out that unlike other cases where arbitration agreements were deemed optional, the contract in this case did not contain language indicating that signing the arbitration agreement was not a condition for admission.
The ruling has significant implications for future cases involving arbitration agreements in healthcare settings. It reinforces the idea that such agreements can be binding if they are integral to the admission process. This decision may affect not only similar wrongful death cases but also other disputes involving arbitration clauses in contracts related to healthcare services.
Moving forward, the case will return to the trial court to address the issue of unconscionability raised by McLean. The court had previously indicated that this issue was not resolved, and the appellate court directed the trial court to make a substantive determination regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement. This means that while the arbitration agreement is enforceable, the court will still need to consider whether it is unconscionable, which could affect its enforceability.
As the case progresses, it remains to be seen how the trial court will handle the unconscionability issue and what precedents this ruling may set for future arbitration disputes in healthcare contexts.