A Tennessee appellate court held that the Tennessee Health Care Decisions Act does not apply retroactively, thereby invalidating an arbitration agreement signed by the daughter of a nursing home resident prior to its enactment.

InRicketts v. Christian Care Center of Cheatham County, Inc., No. M2007-02036-COA-R9-CV, 2008 WL 3833660 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2008), Virginia Ricketts's mother, Mary Williamson, was a resident at Christian Care Center. After Williamson had already been admitted to the nursing home, Ricketts was asked to sign a new admission contract, including an arbitration agreement, to readmit Williamson under new management. Ricketts signed as Williamson's representative.

Upon Williamson's death, Ricketts filed suit against Christian Care Center alleging various claims including negligence and wrongful death. Christian Care Center moved to compel arbitration. The trial court granted the motion.

On appeal, the Court determined that the trial court erred by compelling arbitration of the dispute. As the Court noted, the trial court had accepted the argument that Ricketts had authority to sign as her mother's representative under the Tennessee Health Care Decisions Act (hereinafter, the Act). Under the Act, an agent or surrogate may be identified by the patient's supervising health care provider where a patient that lacks mental capacity to sign a contract has not designated such a representative. Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-11-1806(c)(1). However, the Act did not become law until 2004. The new admission agreement was signed by Ricketts in 2003, nearly a year earlier.

The Court rejected Christian Care Center's argument that the Act could be applied retroactively. There was nothing clearly stated in the Act to rebut the general presumption that statutes do not apply retroactively.

Moreover, the Act is not remedial or procedural; it affects an individual's personal autonomy to make health care decisions. Allowing Ricketts the authority to contract for her mother when Ricketts did not have the right to exercise such authority would contradict principles of contract law and the purpose of the Act.

As the Act did not apply retroactively, Ricketts did not have the authority to sign for Williamson. Accordingly, the Court reversed the order compelling arbitration.