Court Opinion

ID: 9777115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:58:25.053272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:48.895705
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring):
126 I concur in the court's opinion. I write separately to comment on a point made in the lead opinion and to share a concern about the practical implications of the statutory requirement that patients be encouraged to ask questions before signing the arbitration agreement.
T27 The lead opinion observes that "[rle-quiring compliance with specific patient safeguards before an arbitration agreement is validly executed does create the possibility that some arbitration agreements will not be validly executed, and thus that some disputes will be litigated rather than arbitrated." Su-pro 115. While this may be true, it is not a function of the legislation but rather of lax practices on the part of health care providers. In other words, this is something entirely within the control of health care providers. They have the ability to make sure arbitration agreements are validly executed. And it is a simple matter to encourage a patient to read an arbitration agreement and to ask any questions.1
[28 The Legislature's directive that a patient be encouraged to ask questions could not be more clear. And the provider in this case did not demonstrate compliance with this directive. While that ends our inquiry in this case, I do wonder what the point of the exercise is. In my experience, the arbitration agreement is just tucked into a packet that includes health questionnaires, insur*237ance forms, privacy notices, ete. As such, it is handled by front office personnel, not the medical provider. But whether it is the receptionist, nurse, or doctor who encourages the patient to take a few minutes to carefully read the required statement and the agreement and then to ask any questions, I wonder if any of them are qualified to answer the questions that are germane: Will I be as readily able to secure the services of an attorney if the case is arbitrated rather than handled in court? What are the differences in costs, including the cost of legal counsel, for arbitration versus traditional litigation? What are the differences in terms of both liability determinations and the range of monetary awards between malpractice cases adjudicated by arbitration tribunals and those adjudicated in court? Are there differences in the admissibility of evidence as between arbitration and a court proceeding? Which procedure is likely to be concluded more quickly?
« 29 I'm guessing that when put to medical office personnel, such questions will invariably be met with blank stares, looks of astonishment, and candid answers of "I honestly don't know." If the goal of the Legislature is to make sure arbitration agreements are only entered into by fully informed patients-and that is the clear thrust of the statute-an opportunity to ask questions of someone not qualified to answer them may not be the best way to accomplish that goal. Perhaps a brochure that the patient would be encouraged to read would better serve the purpose. Patterned roughly after the familiar Utah Voter Information Pamphlet, it could begin with a neutral explanation of traditional litigation and arbitration, the statute authorizing malpractice arbitration agreements, and the steps required for entering into a valid arbitration agreement. This could be followed by a statement in favor of arbitration by, perhaps, the Utah Medical Association or the Utah Hospitals and Health Systems Association, and a statement against by, say, the Utah Association for Justice.
130 True, fewer of the arbitration agreements would be signed. But those that were signed would be signed by people who understood what they were doing. And that seems to be the point of the statutory framework adopted by our Legislature.

. Documenting statutory compliance is not overly burdensome. A recording could be made easily enough. But a checklist in which the patient checks and initials the provider's compliance with each required step would also be adequate, as would the patient's signing an affidavit or declaration outlining the steps that had been taken. Any hindrances to taking these measures are not inherent in the statutory scheme but rather are practical ones. Implementing such measures will slow down the processing of patients. Anticipating the possibility of malpractice and dwelling on the intricacies of arbitration may negatively affect provider-patient relations. And, of course, careful compliance with the statutory requirements may result in fewer acceptances of arbitration, even as it makes rock-solid those acceptances that are given.
Whether it is worth the trouble is up to the provider. The statute in question authorizes malpractice arbitration agreements if specific requirements are complied with. But such agreements are not mandated. I think that the policy of the statute is not to encourage the use of malpractice arbitration agreements per se, but rather to encourage their use only when they have been fully explained, are fully understood, and are acceptable to a fully-informed patient.