Opinion ID: 895198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What sort of health-related evidence would suffice to escape a forum-selection clause?

Text: I agree that Jetta Prescott's affidavit detailing her myriad health woes is, standing alone, insufficient to avoid the contracted-for forum. The lesson of In re Lyon, as the Court notes, is that the mere assertion of financial and logistical difficulties is not enough to negate a forum-selection clause, lest such clauses become practically useless. [1] Ease of evasion is certainly no less a concern when the claimed hardship is physical rather than financial. So I agree that a party asserting medical infirmities must offer more than her own testimony. I would go a step further, however, and make clear for the bench and bar what sort of evidence would suffice. Boiled down, a party opposing a forum-selection clause bears a heavy burden [2] of proving a heavy burdenthat trial in the chosen forum would be unjustly onerous. And if the assertion is health-related, a health professional should do the asserting. In my view, first-party patient testimony is insufficient (though perhaps not always necessary), and third-party provider testimony is necessary (though perhaps not always sufficient). Specifically, a competent medical provider should attest that the patient's condition makes travel to the agreed forum not merely inconvenient or impracticable, but medically prohibited. This is the approach adopted in a recent federal-court case involving an 81-year-old New York resident who broke her hip on a cruise ship and argued inconvenience to defeat transfer of her personal-injury suit to Washington State under a forum-selection clause. [3] Both the plaintiff and her orthopedic surgeon described her condition, the surgeon testifying she could tolerate a plane flight, although it would be difficult and she would suffer discomfort. [4] The court held that while this plaintiff failed to make the requisite showingshe proved only that travel would be unpleasant, not unfeasiblea plaintiff whose physical limitations bar travel can satisfy the heavy burden of proof required to set aside a forum-selection clause on grounds of inconvenience. [5] If health concerns are ever held to preclude enforcement, this type of proof, at minimum, seems necessary.