Clause in Health Care Plans Blocks Lawsuits

[Rose Siding]

snip>
Millions of Americans are governed by arbitration clauses that block them from taking their grievances to a jury.
But some medical professionals say arbitration is nothing to be angry about.

"The more money we spend on legal process, the less money we have to spend on patients," said Dr. David Lerman of the Southern California Permanente Medical Group.

Because of the secret nature of arbitration, it's not clear whether arbitration is in fact cheaper than jury trials.

But it is pretty clear that health care providers would oppose arbitration if the awards cost them more than a trial.

The industry argues that the patients are the ones who would suffer most without arbitration.

"I think it's reasonable and fair and it keeps the costs down and it gets these things handled much more quickly," said Hal Daub from the American Health Care Association. "I think those are all advantages to the person who may be injured."

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=526073&page=1

[punpirate]

1. Arbitration...

... is very often stacked against the complainant--especially because clauses requiring binding arbitration usually specify that the contractor of the service, not the contractee, gets to pick the arbitrator. Steering business to one arbitrator creates a bias in favor of the contractor, as a recent study shows.

[cap]

2. a good lawyer can throw this out...

you cant waive your rights to a trial under duress.