Signing away your constitutional rights to see a Dr

[Anonymous]

I am in a position where I need to see a specialist and there are few options in my area. All providers available to me require me to sign an arbitration agreement to be seen by provider which they justify by keeping costs down. Here’s a quote from agreement:
“In agreeing to arbitration, the parties agree to give up their constitutional right to have any potential medical malpractice claim resolved in court.” it goes on to explain how three arbitrators come to a conclusion.
I don’t need the process explained, but rather how to get around this. Is this ethical or legal?
The worst part of living with a chronic condition is TRUST.

[Anonymous]

Never saw one. What medical group uses this?

[Anonymous]

Pretty sure that is unenforceable.

[Anonymous]

Here is a group near my Mom that requires this:
https://nflsurgeons.com/

[Anonymous]

You don't have a constitutional right to go to court to sue your doctor, so whoever wrote that is just a bad lawyer. Arbitration agreements are increasingly popular for a lot of reason, including that our court system is pretty dysfunctional. There's really complicated laws about when they are enforceable.

[Anonymous]

They sound sucky. They sound like they or their doctors got sued a lot. They sound like they are too difficult to deal with.

[Anonymous]

There are often arbitration clauses in agreements. People just
Don’t tend to notice them or even read them. They are enforceable. Here’s the thing. In America you have no right to healthcare except stabilization in an ER.

[Anonymous]

Does constitutional right mean something different in that context?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does constitutional right mean something different in that context?

Interesting. Is suing for malpractice a constitutional right?

[Anonymous]

Probably referring to the due process clause. Anyway, what you are agreeing to seems to be a different venue/tribunal - arbitration as opposed to court with jury of your peers. This likely is to reduce the chances of getting some big award through a jury trial. Arbitration likely would not produce that type of windfall, if your case were the type to rise to that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Probably referring to the due process clause. Anyway, what you are agreeing to seems to be a different venue/tribunal - arbitration as opposed to court with jury of your peers. This likely is to reduce the chances of getting some big award through a jury trial. Arbitration likely would not produce that type of windfall, if your case were the type to rise to that level.

Yes. This. And the physicians pays a lower malpractice premium. It’s all about the money.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure private equity is involved somehow. :/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure that is unenforceable.

Generally speaking, it’s very much enforceable.

[Anonymous]

no way I'd sign that. not a chance.

[Anonymous]

This is common.