Nursing Homes Requiring Families to Sign Arbitration Agreements Before Admittance

Daniel J. Williams, Esq.

Recent news out of Oklahoma shows why having competent legal representation is important if you are looking for a nursing home for a loved one. And, importantly, having such representation before making the choice of which nursing home to go with.

Many of Oklahoma’s 300-plus nursing homes require potential residents to sign arbitration agreements prior to their being admitted to the nursing home. The arbitration agreement means that the family would be bound to arbitration if a disagreement over care arose, which would effectively strip the family’s ability to sue in court. And the damages awarded in arbitration would probably be less than if a civil suit in court were filed.

Arbitration is an alternative form of dispute resolution that takes place outside the courts. While this method has its uses, it can limit the rights of victims of elder abuse.  

Other downsides of arbitration in the case of potential nursing home abuse include: enforcing an award to be paid can be more complicated, the proceedings can be made confidential, which allows the nursing home to potentially cover up their wrongdoings, and there are limited avenues for appealing a bad decision, among other negatives.

If you are considering putting a loved-one in a nursing home, you should contact a knowledgeable elder abuse or elder law attorney to review any agreements the nursing home might have you sign prior to admittance. Planning ahead of time can help prevent possibly tragic situations of elder abuse; and, you can ensure that if anything does go wrong, you will have legal recourse to seek justice and compensation.

Even if the state prohibits such arbitration agreements, as they do in Oklahoma, nursing homes could argue that such agreements are permissible under federal law. That is the argument the Oklahoma nursing homes have made.

You can read more on this issue in The Norman Transcript:

http://www.normantranscript.com/news/oklahoma/many-nursing-homes-require-families-to-sign-arbitration-agreements-before/article_09d84ebf-21c4-5b42-8f63-a3bc64d70437.html

Daniel J. Williams is an Elder Abuse Attorney with Fausone Bohn, LLP. The firm has former prosecutors and experienced attorneys who can help you and your family right the wrongs done to your loved one, whether it be nursing home abuse or financial exploitation. Call the Metro Detroit Elder Abuse attorneys today, at (248) 468-4536, or visit us
online at www.fb-firm.com. 

Arbitration Overhaul

Governor Rick Snyder recently approved the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA) – the first major change to Michigan’s arbitration process in over 50 years.  The statute takes effect on July 2013 and is expected to allow arbitrators to better manage their cases as well as safeguard the due process rights of the participants.  The act also gives arbitrators immunity from civil suits, similar to Michigan judges.

One of the big reasons for the change is an effort to decrease the cost of arbitrating disputes.  In many cases, the costs of arbitration have become just as high, and in some cases higher, than traditional litigation in the courts.

In order to control costs, the RUAA gives arbitrators more ability to steer the course of discovery.  For example, an arbitrator can limit the number of depositions and interrogatories.  Also, arbitrators now have the judge-like ability to issue subpoenas to require third parties to attend or provide documents.

The old arbitration act was written in 1955 and was a bare bones, archaic statute with very few actual guidelines on arbitration – in essence, there was no guidance in Michigan.  The old act didn’t even include a method to actually start an arbitration.  With the current widespread use of arbitration in contracts and scenarios not traditionally subject to arbitration, the old act became insufficient to meet modern needs.  RUAA adds procedural components and addresses issues that have arisen in case law in order to provide more certainty in arbitration proceedings.

The act also has several provisions dealing with modifications or corrections of awards made by arbitrators.  Critics of the act have voiced concern that this will cause some practitioners to “shoehorn” their facts into the very narrow grounds allowing a court to modify or correct an arbitration award.  However, arbitrators have always dealt with notion that courts have the power to confirm or vacate arbitration awards on specific, though limited, legal grounds.

If you have questions about arbitrations, or any other legal topic, contact John Walsh or Matt Worley at Fausone Bohn, LLP at (248) 380-000 or online at www.fb-firm.com.