Mandatory Arbitration In Nursing Home Contracts
Please be careful when you sign papers at the nursing home.
They have been including "binding arbitration" clauses in their contracts. They justify this with claims that arbitration is cheaper for both parties than regular nursing home lawsuits. In reality, as a plaintiff, the attorneys pay for all of the costs of a lawsuit and they do not take a fee unless you prevail.
The nursing home's line is that it allows them to concentrate on the care of the residents rather than worry about litigation. In reality, without a jury of one's peers, the resident usually does not get adequate justice.
Moreover, the records of the arbitration are not available for public scrutiny, which hampers the ability of consumers to get at the real truth about a nursing home's record.
So often the decision to place someone in a nursing home is not a deliberative process. It is an emergency and the paper-work just a nuisance to push though.
In California, these clauses are still legal. Hence, if you object, you may find that your placement efforts rejected.
The only thing that you can do is go elsewhere. If you have money and you are paying privately, this may be an option. If you are poor and depending on Medi-Cal, you will be stuck. In fact, you will be lucky to find a home to begin with.
This is a call to action. Please get more involved in California public policy. Our policy makers should follow Florida's and West Virginia's lead in prohibiting these pre-dispute arbitration clauses in admission agreements.
If the parties choose to enter arbitration after a dispute arises, that is their right. But the process should be voluntary, without coercion and the resident's admission or stay at a facility should not be conditioned upon the signing of a one-sided agreement.
