Arbitration Is Bad For Victims of Medical Negligence

Posted by Dan FrithFebruary 17, 2008 12:47 PM

There is a time and place for the arbitration of claims for medical negligence. That time and place arrives after the dispute (read malpractice) occurs and both sides have voluntarily decided to resolve their dispute not through the civil justice system but through arbitration. Unfortunately for the victims of medical negligence, more and more health care providers are requiring patients to sign mandatory arbitration agreements BEFORE treatment is provided.

Here are two experiences by consumers of medical care:

Michael Cohen was handed an arbitration agreement when he visited his longtime primary-care doctor in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Cohen said he was not the suing kind, but the thought of being asked to give up his right to sue "stopped me in my tracks." He said no, and his doctor saw him anyway.

Hedy Cohen, who has had a kidney transplant, was mailed a similar form by a group of kidney specialists she planned to see for the first time. The form from Hypertension-Nephrology Associates in Willow Grove insisted on binding arbitration and said she would have to pay the doctors' legal fees if she filed a complaint and lost.
Hedy Cohen said no and was told to find another nephrologist.

Why do health care providers want to use arbitration? From my prospective, the providers want a "quick, cheap, and confidential" resolution of the claim. The providers do not want the publicity of their medical mistakes. The providers do not want to be forced to pay for the "pain and suffering" their negligence caused the patient and the family.

If your doctor or hospital requires you to sign away your rights to hold them legally responsible for acts of medical negligence....you better think twice!