Articles Posted in Arbitration

For decades, arbitration has been the favored way for Maryland nursing homes to resolves dispute made by residents and residents’ families. In part, this is because arbitration is confidential, meaning that the facility does not need to worry about the news of a resident’s injuries or suffering getting out. However, there is also evidence suggesting that nursing homes get better results in cases that go to arbitration. Arbitration is also less expensive, which primarily benefits nursing homes, as they are the party who is frequently engaged in litigation.

While arbitration is rarely, if ever, in the best interest of a nursing home resident, many residents end up signing agreements to arbitrate their claim. Often, prospective residents are presented with these agreements in highly stressful times when they may feel as though they have limited options. Other times, residents sign arbitration agreements because they do not fully understand the rights they are giving up by signing, and feel pressured to sign. Consequently, many residents who suffer abuse or neglect at the hands of their caregivers are devastated to learn that they cannot file a lawsuit in court, and must proceed through the arbitration process.

In 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, under the Obama administration, implemented a ban on arbitration agreements in pre-admission paperwork for all nursing homes that accepted Medicare or Medicaid. However, under a new rule scheduled to go into effect on September 16, 2019, nursing homes will once again be able to include arbitration contracts in their pre-admission paperwork.

Most nursing home admission paperwork contains an arbitration clause. By signing an arbitration clause, a nursing home resident agrees to resolve any claims that may arise between the resident and the nursing home through arbitration, rather than through the court system. It is widely understood that arbitration offers great benefits to nursing homes, often to the detriment of nursing home residents and their family members. Thus, plaintiffs in Maryland nursing home lawsuits often seek to void arbitration clauses so they can pursue a claim in court.

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a nursing home negligence lawsuit requiring the court to determine if an arbitration clause required the plaintiff to resolve his wrongful death claim through arbitration. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s father passed away while in the care of the defendant nursing home. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death claim in court against the parent company of the nursing home.

Evidently, the plaintiff’s father signed an arbitration clause upon his admission to the facility. The clause was signed by the plaintiff’s father and a nursing home representative. The document contained a “delegation clause” stating that the agreement included “all affiliates, parents, officers, owners, members, agents, successors and assigns” of the nursing home. The nursing home claimed that the agreement required the plaintiff to resolve his claim through arbitration.

In some Maryland nursing home abuse and neglect cases, the determination as to whether a plaintiff’s claim is heard by an arbitrator or by a court can mean the difference between success and defeat. Most legal experts agree that nursing home arbitration contracts only benefit the nursing home. Thus, one of the most common preliminary matters in nursing home lawsuits is determining whether there is a binding arbitration clause.

As a general rule, arbitration clauses are binding on all parties if they are valid and properly executed. However, numerous issues can preclude the enforcement of an arbitration clause. One question that courts have recently been wrestling with is when a resident’s loved one (rather than the resident) signs the arbitration agreement. Recently a state appellate court decided that it would not review an appeal from a nursing home resident whose husband signed the agreement on her behalf.

According to the lower court’s opinion, the plaintiff was admitted to the defendant nursing home. At the time of admission, the plaintiff was accompanied by her husband, who signed the pre-admission paperwork on the plaintiff’s behalf. Among the documents the plaintiff’s husband signed was an agreement to arbitrate any claims arising from the plaintiff’s residence at the facility.

Arbitration clauses are very popular in the nursing home industry. Arbitration is a way to resolve a legal dispute without using the court system. Generally, arbitration is quicker and less expensive than a traditional lawsuit. At first glance, this may seem like a good alternative for many Maryland nursing home residents who want to bring a case against a negligent or abusive nursing home employee. However, arbitration typically favors the nursing home and should be avoided whenever possible.

Often, the paperwork presented to a prospective resident or the loved one in charge of their care contains an arbitration clause. These clauses essentially waive a resident’s right to pursue a case against the nursing home in court for any claim brought against the nursing home. However, nursing home residents are not provided anything waiving this right, and should carefully consider whether it is a right they want to waive.

Arbitration involves an independent arbitrator who hears the claim and renders a decision. The arbitrator that will hear the case is determined by the nursing home, and is typically included in the arbitration clause. Arbitration hearings often have strict time frames and relaxed rules of evidence, allowing savvy nursing homes who are familiar with the process and its rules to effectively defend against cases brought by residents. In a way, this gives nursing homes the “home-field advantage.”

Over the past few months, we have frequently covered cases and news stories discussing the issue of mandatory arbitration clauses that are contained in Maryland nursing home contracts. In Maryland and around the country, arbitration clauses continue to be one of the most contentious issues in many cases that are filed against nursing homes based on either the neglect or abuse of a resident. If enforceable, an arbitration clause can prevent a nursing home resident or their loved ones from pursuing a claim against the facility in court.

In a recent case issued by a state appellate court, a nursing home arbitration agreement was held not to be applicable against a resident’s son, although the resident’s son was the person who signed the form. According to the court’s opinion, the resident was admitted to the defendant nursing home in 2015. At the time, he was suffering from sepsis and chronic renal failure. The man’s son (the plaintiff) accompanied him to the nursing home and facilitated his admission.

The day after his father was admitted into the nursing home, the plaintiff was presented with a stack of documents to sign. Among these documents was one that, by signing, the plaintiff purported to consent to arbitration if the mediation process was not successful in resolving the case. All documents were signed.

The legal and ethical implications of mandatory arbitration provisions have been the subject of much discussion over the past few years. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in an arbitration case. While the case involves an employment arbitration agreement, the case is relevant to Maryland nursing home cases insofar as it illuminates the Court’s general position on arbitration agreements. Especially interesting is Justice Ginsburg’s dissent to the Court’s opinion.

The case involved a dispute between an employee and his employer, after the employer released the employee’s personal information in response to a phishing scam. Prior to his employment, the employee signed an arbitration agreement. Nowhere in the arbitration agreement was the possibility of a class-action discussed.

After the employee filed a lawsuit against his employer, intending to form a class-action lawsuit against the employer, the employer argued that the arbitration agreement compelled bilateral arbitration, or arbitration between a single employee and the employer.

When someone is admitted into a Maryland nursing home, the nursing home will present the potential resident with pre-admission paperwork that must be completed before the home will accept the resident into its care. This paperwork will often contain an arbitration agreement by which the resident agrees to resolve any disputes that arise through binding arbitration, rather than filing a case in court.

Most nursing home residents are admitted to a Maryland nursing home because they are unable to care for themselves. Thus, the pre-admission paperwork is often filled out by loved ones who are helping their aging relative obtain the care they need. These family members may or may not have power of attorney over their loved one’s affairs. Even if a resident has executed a power of attorney in favor of a loved one, the exact wording of the document is crucial when determining whether the loved one has the ability to bind the resident to an arbitration agreement.

Recently, a court dismissed a nursing home’s request to compel a resident to resolve their case through arbitration. In that case, a man was admitted to the defendant nursing home. At the time of admission, the man was alert and aware of his surroundings. However, he was accompanied by his niece, who signed all nursing home pre-admission paperwork. Included in this paperwork was an agreement to arbitrate all claims. The resident had executed a power of attorney in favor of his niece. However, that document was only effective once the resident became mentally incompetent.

The United States Constitution guarantees all citizens equal access to our court system. However, courts have repeatedly held that the right of access to the court system, like many other important rights, can be waived. In theory, by signing an arbitration agreement a person gives up their right to file any future claim in the court system and agrees to resolve the claim through binding arbitration.

Arbitration clauses are used in many situations, including employment contracts, cell phone contracts, and, of course, nursing home contracts. However, there is a serious concern that those who are asked to sign an arbitration agreement – and, in the process, give up fundamental constitutional rights – do so unknowingly. Indeed, it is not uncommon for the victim of Maryland nursing home abuse to file a claim, only to learn for the first time that they must resolve the claim through arbitration

Despite the important rights that a person gives up when agreeing to arbitration, too often, arbitration clauses consist of a few paragraphs in a much longer contract. These contracts are usually written in small print and, at first glance, would seem to be unimportant. Thus, when consumers, nursing home residents, or employees are presented with these lengthy documents, they frequently overlook the arbitration clause, or at least fail to fully comprehend the importance of the document that they have just been asked to sign.

When someone is admitted as a resident in a Maryland nursing home, they are likely presented with pre-admission paperwork containing an agreement to arbitrate. These agreements, if enforceable, require that any Maryland nursing home abuse or neglect claims arising from a resident’s relationship with the facility are resolved through arbitration rather than through the court system.

In previous posts, we have discussed the pros and cons of resolving claims through arbitration from the resident’s perspective. It is important to note that, by agreeing to arbitration, Maryland nursing home residents give up many of their rights. Most notable of the rights that are waived is that of access to the court system and to appeal an adverse judgment.

For the most part, nursing home arbitration decisions are final. However, if the arbitration was not properly conducted, one of the parties involved in the arbitration may have been deprived of a statutory or constitutional right. In these situations, an arbitration decision can be reviewed by a court. However, establishing that a decision is entitled to review can be difficult. Recently, a state appellate court refused to reconsider an arbitration award that was issued against a nursing home.

The validity and enforceability of arbitration agreements have recently become very important issues in Maryland nursing home abuse and neglect cases. Typically, these agreements are contained in the pre-admission paperwork that a resident or their loved one is asked to sign before the resident is admitted. Needless to say, this is a very stressful and emotional time, and prospective residents and their family members may not always have a full appreciation for the rights they give up by signing an arbitration agreement.

As a general rule, courts will enforce an arbitration agreement as long as it is valid and executed correctly. One crucial question that courts will ask when determining the validity of an arbitration agreement is whether both parties knew what they agreed to when they entered into the agreement. A recent article discusses a case in which an arbitration agreement did not bind a nursing home resident because the contract was signed by her son, who did not speak English.

Evidently, back in 2017, an 86-year-old woman was admitted to the defendant nursing home after a left-knee replacement surgery. Because of her age and frailty, the woman was identified as a high-risk patient. During her stay at the defendant nursing home, she claimed that a nurse at the facility “recklessly pushed” her wheelchair into a bathroom door, causing her to break her patella.

Contact Information