TITLE

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE--WAIVER--CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS--VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT-- M.C.L. $ 600.5040--MICHIGAN

PUB. DATE
September 1982
SOURCE
Arbitration Journal;Fall82, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p74
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article presents information about the court case Moore v. Fragatos. In the case, it was held that in order for a medical malpractice claims arbitration agreement to be valid and binding, it must be provable that the patient chose arbitration knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. A patient was admitted for back surgery to Detroit Memorial Hospital, and subsequently filed a malpractice action, naming several doctors and the hospital as defendants. The hospital moved to compel arbitration, alleging that the court did not have jurisdiction over the dispute because the patient had signed an agreement to arbitrate upon admission, and had not revoked it within 60 days as required by the Michigan Medical Malpractice Act. The court noted that the patient could not make an intelligent choice if he was unaware of the consequence of what he was signing. The court remanded the case to afford the hospital an opportunity to prove that the patient willingly, knowingly, and intelligently signed the agreement thereby waiving his fundamental right to a trial.
ACCESSION #
17319491

 

Related Articles

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE--JOINDER OF PARTIES- JURISDICTION--VALID ARBITRATION AGREEMENT M.C.L. § 600.5040--MICHIGAN.  // Arbitration Journal;Fall82, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p74 

    The article presents information about the court case Bowes v. International Pharmakon Laboratories Inc. In the case, it was held that a valid agreement to arbitrate couldn't be avoided by joining parties who have not agreed to arbitration. A lady contracted meningitis after receiving an...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TIMELINESS JURISDICTION--CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. § .183- - CALIFORNIA.  // Arbitration Journal;Jun82, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p59 

    The article examines questions involving jurisdiction of the courts in a court case in California, involving medical malpractice. An action should not be dismissed based solely on a lapse of time between the filing of the complaint and the motion for dismissal where the matter has been ordered...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE -- CALIFORNIA -- ARBITRATION AGREEMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY -- NOT A CONTRACT OF ADHESION.  // Arbitration Journal;Jun76, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p137 

    This article focuses on a court decision related to medical malpractice. The court, finding that there was a valid agreement to arbitrate, held that arbitration of a claim of negligence in the rendering of professional services does not violate California public policy, that this was not a...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE -- CALIFORNIA -- VACATUR OF AWARD -- CONTRACT OF ADHESION -- ARBITRATOR BIAS.  // Arbitration Journal;Dec76, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p282 

    The article focuses on the court decision held in the case Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital, related to the medical malpractice. Where a patient signed an arbitration clause upon admission to the hospital but the arbitration clause was not called to the patient's attention and a reasonable...

  • Review of Court Decisions.  // Arbitration Journal;Dec81, Vol. 36 Issue 4, p54 

    The section presents and reviews several court decisions in arbitration-related cases in the U.S. The medical malpractice case Morris versus South Macomb Hospital discusses the constitutionality of the Michigan Malpractice Act. The decision in the case Dames & Moore versus Donald T. Regan,...

  • At Issue.  // ABA Journal;May86, Vol. 72 Issue 5, p34 

    Presents arguments for and against statutory limits on pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits in the United States. Vice chairperson of the American Bar Association Section of Torts and Insurance Practice, Douglas G. Houser's arguments on the need for statutory limits for...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE--ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT-- ADHESION CONTRACT--UNCONSCIONABITY--SCOPE--MATTERJURISDICTION-- SCOPE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AAA RULE 48--ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARIZONA.  // Arbitration Journal;Sep92, Vol. 47 Issue 3, p69 

    This article presents information about a court case wherein the court ruled that an arbitration agreement that was an adhesion contract was enforceable because it was not unconscionable and met the reasonable expectations of the party. In addition, the administrative fees of the American...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE--MANDATORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS--CALIFORNIA.  // Arbitration Journal;Mar1984, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p72 

    The article reports a California federal court decision in the case "Rosenfield v. Superior Court, L.A. City." According to the decision, the provisions of §1295 of the California Civil Procedure Code, that concern waiver of a patient's right to a jury trial of malpractice claims, are...

  • MEDICAL MALPRACTICE--GROUP MEDICAL COVERAGE--INFANT--CALIFORNIA.  // Arbitration Journal;Mar1984, Vol. 39 Issue 1, p72 

    The article reports a California federal court decision in the case "Wilson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals." According to the decision, where a group medical insurance coverage contract provided for arbitration of malpractice claims, an infant's claim for bodily injury arising out of alleged...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY AND SYSTEM

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics