Arbitration Contractual Clause Knowing Execution Medical Patient
Dziedzic v. Genesis HealthCare, Inc. et al., PICS Case No. 17-1059 (C.P. Berks June 23, 2017) Sprecher, J. (6 pages).
Where a medical patient could not be relied upon to pay her expenses or authorize medical decisions for herself due to her condition, it would have been impossible for that patient to read, understand and execute an arbitration agreement knowingly. The court recommended affirmance of its order overruling defendants' preliminary objection and request for binding arbitration.
Elizabeth M. Dziedzic entered the Mifflin Center on April 22, 2014, and was a resident there until June 4, 2014. There was no dispute that Elizabeth took medicine that day which made her lethargic and limited her communication skills. The day after she entered the center, Elizabeth signed a "voluntary binding arbitration agreement." Mifflin Center's admissions and marketing director, Colleen Beascoechea, signed the document on behalf of the center. Elizabeth died on Feb. 14, 2015. Plaintiff, Elizabeth's son, filed this medical professional liability action against the Mifflin Center and, inter alia, the center's corporate owners. Defendants filed a preliminary objection asking the court to transfer plaintiff's survival claim to private binding arbitration. The court overruled the preliminary objection. Defendants filed an appeal, prompting the court's opinion. The court considered testimony from plaintiff, an attorney, who said he had spoken to his mother daily. Plaintiff had held the power of attorney for Elizabeth since June 9, 2004. During Elizabeth's residence at Mifflin Center, plaintiff consulted with her doctors and therapists to make decisions about her care. Beascoechea contacted plaintiff on April 22, the day of her admission, to ask him if he was the person responsible for Elizabeth's finances. At that time, plaintiff faxed a copy of his power of attorney to Beascoechea. Thereafter, Mifflin Center always contacted plaintiff about any billing issues. However, Beascoechea did not advise plaintiff that any admissions paperwork needed to be signed. She testified that she never tells center residents that they have a right to consult an attorney prior to signing the arbitration agreement unless they specifically ask her if an attorney can review the documents. Beascoechea also said that she would not inform family members that a resident had signed the agreement. While Mifflin Center knew prior to Elizabeth's execution of the arbitration agreement that plaintiff held her power of attorney, it did not consult plaintiff about the admission paperwork. However, the center contacted plaintiff to ensure payment of Elizabeth's expenses and his authority to make medical decisions. If Elizabeth could not be relied upon to pay her expenses or authorize medical decisions for herself, it would have been impossible for her to read, understand and execute the arbitration agreement knowingly, the court reasoned. The court found defendants' conduct "troubling," as it appeared they intentionally concealed the paperwork from plaintiff. As such, the court found the arbitration agreement to be unenforceable.