|
Affirming a trial court's rejection of an unconscionability challenge to an arbitration agreement, the Ohio Court of Appeals held that a nursing home arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, as the party challenging the agreement failed to show that she did not have time to review the agreement.
In Fortune v. Castle Nursing Homes, Inc., No. 07 CA 001, 2007 WL 4227458 (Ohio. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2007), Fortune, a former resident of Castle, sued the nursing home for negligence after a nursing home aide allegedly allowed her to fall to the floor, which injured her right leg. Castle moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the admission contract. Fortune opposed the motion, arguing the admissions agreement was unconscionable. The trial court granted the motion.
On appeal, the Court upheld the arbitration agreement, finding it was not unconscionable. A party must establish that an arbitration clause is procedurally and substantively unconscionable in order to invalidate it. Addressing exclusively the procedural unconscionability question, the Court found Fortune failed to proffer evidence showing procedural unconscionability. Specifically, Fortune did not show that she was under stress or did not have sufficient time to review the agreement. In fact, she signed the agreement two days after she received it.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|