Two West Virginia nursing facilities received very different answers from federal judges in requests to enforce arbitration agreements.
One nursing home was allowed to compel arbitration in a dispute with a resident’s family member, while another judge refused to enforce the agreement in different case. The key takeaway for providers is to craft contracts that do not overly favor one side over the other, Bloomberg Law reported.
“Because of an overall and gross imbalance, one-sidedness, or lopsidedness in a contract, a court may be justified in refusing to enforce the contract as written,” noted Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, who sided with Riverside Health and Rehabilitation Center in its case. “Here, the terms of the [arbitration agreement] simply do not favor one party over the other.”
In that case, Pauline Tomaszewski filed suit against the St. Albans, WV, facility, alleging her late husband, Richard, was injured by poor care and abuse. She asserted that the arbitration agreement she signed at admission was “unconscionable” because it was one-sided and strongly favored the facility, making it unenforceable. Goodwin, however, sided with the provider, ruling that its terms were not hidden or complex, Bloomberg noted.
In the other case, Judge Robert C. Chambers refused to compel arbitration in a lawsuit filed against the Teays Valley Center, in Hurricane, WV. Peggy Waugh, administrator of resident Frances Blankenship’s estate, argued that her daughter did not have legal authority to sign an arbitration pact at admission.
While Terri Ellis did have power of attorney to make healthcare decisions for Blankenship, agreeing to arbitration did not fit that bill, because it was not required for the man to be admitted to the facility, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia judge ruled.
