Personal Injury Law

Arbitration Agreements Increasing

By Beth Janicek

Binding arbitration agreements are increasing between physicians, nursing homes and healthcare institutions. Some states have started taking legislative action to limit the agreements.

An American Medical Association official said that the organization did not have a policy on the issue, and that the only information it had was a 2003 report discussing arbitration as one method of medical liability reform.

The criticism is that the arbitration agreements take away the injured persons right to a trial by jury. The proponents argue that the arbitration is more cost effective. However, the appropriate time to determine whether the parties want to arbitrate is after the injury has occurred and both parties are represented by counsel and can explain the benefits and disadvantages of arbitration. There is no benefit to the consumer for signing the agreement prior to the injury and prior to representation by counsel. Many of the agreements are written strongly in favor of the medical provider and the consumer does not fully understand the terms. The proponent's argument that the agreements are written in easily understandable terms is disingenuous. A consumer may be able to read the words of the agreement, drafted by an attorney for the medical provider, but the consumer has no experience in lawsuits and what the implications would be for them or their claim. An arbitration agreement should not be entered until all parties have consulted an attorney and know what the injury is that will be arbitrated.

Full post as published by San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyer on April 01, 2008 (boomark / email).