The U.S. Supreme Court case Marmet Health Care Center, Inc., et al., v. Clayton Brown et al., 2011 revolved around the issue of arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts. The families of three deceased residents sued the nursing homes for negligence and wrongful death, but the facilities argued that these disputes should be resolved through arbitration as per their admission agreements. Lower courts sided with the families, stating that such claims related to personal injury or wrongful death could not be subjected to compulsory arbitration under West Virginia law. However, upon appeal by Marmet Health Care Center and other petitioners, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed this decision based on Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court held that state laws cannot prohibit outright arbitration of a particular type of claim because it is against FAA's text and precedent which favor enforceability of such agreements.

In the dissenting opinion for Marmet Health Care Center, Inc., v. Clayton Brown et al., 2011, it was argued that the Supreme Court's decision to enforce arbitration agreements in nursing home contracts undermines public policy and potentially jeopardizes patient safety. The dissenters contended that such a ruling could prevent victims of negligence or abuse from seeking redress through traditional litigation channels. They also expressed concern about unequal bargaining power between patients and healthcare providers, suggesting that many individuals may feel compelled to sign these agreements without fully understanding their implications. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arguing it should not be used as a tool to limit states' ability to protect vulnerable citizens.