Should Providers Require Patients to Sign Away Their Right to Sue?
Under Ohio's new tort reform bill, patients can be asked to sign an agreement that provides for binding arbitration in the case of any dispute over the outcome of a procedure or treatment. The AMA has come out in favor of arbitration and the OSMA is working on creating a model binding arbitration agreement. Ohio is not the only state to permit binding arbitration provisions. A recent Wall Street Journal article highlighted the increased use of binding arbitration provisions by health care providers.
Despite the appeal that a binding arbitration provision may have at first glance, I do not recommend that providers require patients to sign a binding arbitration provision. Asking a patient to sign a binding arbitration clause will probably have a negative impact on patient goodwill and ultimately may not benefit the provider in a malpractice dispute because the professional liability insurance industry has not embraced binding arbitration clauses. Binding arbitration clauses are considered difficult to uphold because the patient's attorney will argue that the patient did not understand the extent of the rights that the patient was giving up. In addition, many insurance companies would prefer to take their chances with a jury or judge than with an arbitrator. For these reasons, if a provider obtains a binding arbitration agreement from a patient, it is likely that the provider's insurance company will ignore the provision when it defends the provider in a dispute.
Back to Top of Page
Back to "Tort Reform" Index | Back to "Update" Index
|
