Tuesday, April 25, 2006 | 7:07 a.m.
A Las Vegas Sun story on Monday recounted the ordeal of a local woman who went more than two years without an obstetrician/gynecologist after being dropped by her former specialist in 2004. The woman suspects she was dropped after she rejected an agreement to have any future malpractice claim settled by arbitration rather than the courts.
The woman's former doctor denied that assertion, saying she had to downsize her practice after losing her business partner and because of rising insurance rates for medical malpractice coverage.
But the doctor did acknowledge that her patients are requested to sign the form, which advises them that by going to arbitration they are giving up their right to a "jury or court trial." It also advises that the patient may cancel the arbitration agreement by giving written notice to the doctor within 30 days after signing it. But how many patients, in a rush for treatment, actually read the document until it is too late?
Although they are becoming common in many fields, we oppose such pre-claim agreements. Consumers always have a right to choose arbitration after they make a claim, whether for malpractice or a construction defect. But they should not be pressured in advance to sign away their right to avail themselves of the court system.
In the case of health care, many patients may sign such an agreement out of fear, given that many medical specialists are overloaded already and are reluctant to expand their practices.
Arbitration agreements were restricted in 1985 by the Nevada Supreme Court. Ruling in "Obstetrics and Gynecologists v. Pepper," the court said such contracts are not enforceable unless there was "plain and clear notification of the terms and an understanding consent."
Asked by the Sun if her office takes the initiative in informing patients about the agreements, the doctor who dropped the local woman in 2004 acknowledged that it does not. We believe this is the real danger of such agreements. Whether seeking medical care or buying a house, there are innumerable forms that must be signed and consumers are constantly at risk of unwittingly placing their signature to an agreement that will haunt them later.
The consumer then must accept the agreement or incur the expense of a lawyer to help him void it. Arbitration agreements often saddle the consumer with the expense of the procedure but allow the doctor or contractor to choose the arbitrator. We hope the Nevada Legislature takes up this issue during its 2007 session and passes a law prohibiting pre-claim arbitration agreements.
archive
