Court Opinion

ID: 9655085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:59:49.384825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:16.032477
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(concurring). I concur in Judge Riley’s statement of facts and in Part A of her opinion. I cannot agree, however, that the medical malpractice arbitration agreements involved here are unconscionable._
*404A finding of unconscionability generally reflects a determination that enforcement of a particular agreement is contrary to public policy. I agree that enforcement of these agreements is bad policy. Nevertheless, in the last analysis, determination of public policy is the province of the Legislature. Where the Legislature has unambiguously endorsed a particular kind of agreement, the judiciary is no longer free to declare that such agreements are unconscionable. It seems to me that the Legislature has, wrongly or rightly, given its unqualified seal of approval to these arbitration agreements, and that I must therefore defer to its declaration of public policy.
I note, however, that the record does not affirmatively show that the decedent’s mother made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of her daughter’s constitutional right to access to the courts. See Moore v Fragatos, 116 Mich App 179; 321 NW2d 781 (1982). Moreover, I entertain grave doubts with respect to the validity of a parent’s purported waiver of his own child’s constitutional rights. Resolution of this issue, however, can wait until another day.
In concur in the result.