Reversing a trial court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration of a medical malpractice dispute, a Florida appellate court held that an arbitration agreement was valid and rejected a finding of procedural unconscionability because the arbitration agreement appeared in a separate document in clear and conspicuous bold letters.

In Jonathan M. Frantz, M.D., P.A. v. Shedden, No. 2D07-3700, 2008 WL 465543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2008), Shedden sought elective surgery from Florida Eye Health. During a pre-operation visit, Florida Eye Health employees presented Shedden with documents to fill out before the surgery. One of these documents was an arbitration agreement denoted in large black letters on a separate form. The Florida Eye Health employees provided him with sufficient time to review the agreement and even told him he could take the agreement with him and review it with an attorney. According to Shedden's testimony, he signed the agreement without reading it.

Shedden later sued Florida Eye Health for malpractice. Florida Eye Health moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration agreement signed by Shedden. Shedden opposed the motion, arguing the agreement was unconscionable and violated Florida public policy. The trial court granted the motion and Florida Eye Health appealed.

Reversing the trial court, the Court held that the arbitration agreement was not unconscionable and did not violate public policy. Under Florida law, the party asserting unconscionability must establish that an agreement is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. The Court found that Shedden failed to show the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because the arbitration agreement appeared in a separate document. Additionally, the agreement clearly and conspicuously identified itself as an arbitration agreement. Moreover, Florida Eye Health provided Shedden with sufficient time to review the document and even ask questions or consult an attorney.

Likewise, the Court found the arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable. The agreement was neither unreasonable nor unfair, as it mirrored the provisions of Fla. Stat. § 766.207, which governs voluntary binding arbitration agreements of medical malpractice claims.

The Court also rejected Shedden's argument that the arbitration agreement violated public policy by negating his right to appeal provided by the Florida Arbitration Code. Although the agreement provided that the arbitrator's ruling is final and binding, it did not limit or eliminate Shedden's right to seek vacatur. Moreover, the agreement required that the arbitrator conduct proceedings "pursuant to the Florida Arbitration Code."