Challenging Arbitration Agreements in Nursing Homes

When a loved one enters a nursing home or assisted living facility, families are often overwhelmed. Admissions move fast. Paperwork is handed over in thick packets. Decisions are made while attention is focused on health, safety, and immediate care needs—not on legal fine print.

Buried in that documentation is often a pre-dispute arbitration agreement. Many families sign it without realizing its significance—or that they are signing it at all.

At the Peck Law Group, we often help families challenge these agreements. We focus on situations where residents may not have understood the rights they gave up.

If you have questions about a signed arbitration agreement, we’re here to help—get in touch today.

What Is a Pre-Dispute Arbitration Agreement—And Why Does It Exist?

A pre-dispute arbitration agreement is a contract that says: if something goes wrong later, you agree not to take the case to court.

Instead of a judge and jury, disputes are handled through private arbitration, where a neutral arbitrator decides the case outside the public court system.

On paper, arbitration can sound appealing. Facilities describe it as faster, less formal, and less stressful than court. Some families are told it provides privacy or resolves disputes efficiently.

In certain business or commercial settings, arbitration can make sense.

But in the context of nursing homes and assisted living facilities, arbitration frequently benefits the facility far more than the resident.

What is rarely explained is that arbitration requires residents to give up their constitutional right to a jury trial before any injury, neglect, or abuse has occurred—often during admission, when residents are vulnerable, and families are under pressure to move quickly.

If you were not clearly told about waiving your right to go to court, have the agreement reviewed.

How Arbitration Can Negatively Impact Long-Term Care Residents

Once enforced, an arbitration agreement changes the course of a case in important ways. These changes often work against residents and their families.

In long-term care cases, arbitration can make it harder to reveal the full truth.

Discovery is often more limited. Families may face restrictions obtaining staffing records, internal emails, corporate policies, or prior complaints showing patterns of neglect or understaffing.

The process is private. Unlike court cases, arbitration does not make a public record. Dangerous practices can remain hidden—even when residents suffer serious harm.

Appeal rights are extremely narrow. If an arbitrator makes a mistake, there is usually little opportunity to challenge the decision—even if it seems unfair or unsupported.

There is also an imbalance in experience. Nursing home operators and insurers are repeat players in arbitration; families are not. That imbalance can influence outcomes, especially in credibility disputes.

For residents who rely on others for care, these limitations can hamper accountability.

Why Capacity Is So Important in Long-Term Care Arbitration

Under California law, a contract is only enforceable if the person signing it had legal capacity at the time. Capacity means more than being awake or present. It means understanding:

• What the document was
• That the right to a jury trial was being waived
• The legal consequences of signing

In nursing homes, residents often sign documents during periods of vulnerability. Many face dementia, cognitive decline, medication effects, infection, or exhaustion. Others are disoriented or rely on trusted staff explanations.

If a resident did not truly understand what the arbitration agreement meant, the agreement may not be enforceable.

Questions about capacity are common—and worth exploring early.

Capacity Is a Medical Question as Much as a Legal One

Capacity is not a checkbox on a form. It requires examining the resident’s medical and cognitive condition at the time of signing.

At the Peck Law Group, we look closely at diagnoses, medications, nursing notes, hospital records, and changes in mental status surrounding admission. We work with experienced legal nurse consultants and medical experts to assess whether a true understanding was possible under the circumstances.

This medical context often tells a very different story than the one facilities present after the fact.

If your loved one had dementia, confusion, or a serious illness around the time of admission, it may be important to speak with an attorney who understands how capacity is evaluated.

What the Law Requires Facilities to Prove

Facilities often assume a signature alone enforces arbitration. Courts increasingly reject this.

When a facility seeks arbitration, it must prove the agreement is valid. That means showing the resident had capacity and that consent was real.

General statements like “the resident appeared alert” or “they were present during signing” are usually not enough. This is especially true if medical records show cognitive problems.

Courts expect admissible evidence, not speculation.

This shift is particularly important in long-term care cases, where residents are known to be vulnerable and dependent.

A California Supreme Court Arbitration Decision Handled by the Peck Law Group

The arbitration issues discussed above are not theoretical. They arise in real nursing home cases, including a matter taken to the California Supreme Court by the Peck Law Group involving the scope of arbitration agreements signed at admission.

In Holland v. Silverscreen Healthcare, Inc., the Peck Law Group represented the parents of a resident who died while living in a skilled nursing facility. The facility attempted to force the family’s wrongful death claims into arbitration based on an arbitration form the resident had signed at admission.

The claims were not based on medical malpractice. Instead, the parents alleged failures involving basic, day-to-day care, including supervision, safety, and other custodial responsibilities necessary to protect the resident’s well-being.

The facility argued that because the arbitration agreement referenced medical malpractice, the family’s claims had to be arbitrated. The Court of Appeal initially agreed. The California Supreme Court did not.

When Arbitration Clauses Go Beyond Medical Malpractice

In its decision, the Court drew a clear distinction between claims based on professional medical services and claims based on custodial neglect. The Court explained that skilled nursing facilities serve in a dual role: they may provide healthcare services, but they are also responsible for residents’ basic care, safety, and daily needs.

The Court held that arbitration provisions tied to medical malpractice do not automatically apply to wrongful death claims based on custodial neglect, such as failures involving supervision, hydration, hygiene, nutrition, or a safe living environment. Those duties concern basic welfare, not medical treatment.

Because the claims in Holland were grounded in alleged neglect of basic care rather than medical malpractice, the Supreme Court ruled that the family could not be compelled to arbitrate and was entitled to pursue the case in court.

That decision clarified an important limitation on arbitration in nursing home cases. Facilities cannot rely on broad language to force all claims out of court. They must show that arbitration actually applies to the specific conduct at issue and is legally justified under the facts of the case.

Arbitration Agreements Signed at Admission Face Close Scrutiny

In a separate case, the family of a resident who had been diagnosed with dementia more than a year before her admission to a skilled nursing facility. The resident did not sign the arbitration agreement herself. The document was signed by her daughter during the admissions process, along with a large packet of other paperwork.

After the resident suffered multiple falls, injuries, and infections that ultimately led to her death, the facility attempted to force the family’s claims into arbitration based on that admission paperwork.

The California trial court refused to enforce the arbitration agreement.

In reaching that decision, the court focused on whether the resident had the capacity to understand an arbitration agreement at the time of admission and whether the daughter had legal authority to waive her mother’s right to a jury trial. The facility argued that the daughter’s involvement in the admission process and healthcare decisions was enough. The court disagreed.

In Harrod v. Country Oaks Health Care, LLC, the Court made clear that signing an optional arbitration agreement is not the same as making a healthcare decision. Authority to assist with medical care or admission logistics does not automatically include the authority to agree to arbitration.

Because the facility could not present admissible evidence showing either meaningful consent by the resident or clear legal authority held by the daughter, the court refused to compel arbitration.

That result reflects how courts are now required to analyze arbitration agreements in nursing home and assisted living cases. Facilities must do more than point to a signature. They must prove capacity, authority, and genuine consent—especially when residents have cognitive impairments, and arbitration is presented at admission.

When a Family Member Signs Instead of the Resident

In many cases, a facility will argue that arbitration applies because a family member signed on the resident’s behalf.

But authority matters.

Helping with paperwork or being listed as a “responsible party” does not automatically give someone the legal power to waive another person’s constitutional rights. Without a valid power of attorney or a court order specifically granting that authority, arbitration agreements signed by family members may not be enforceable.

This issue is frequently overlooked—and often critical.

How the Peck Law Group Challenges Arbitration Agreements

Challenging arbitration is often the first major legal issue in a nursing home or assisted living abuse case.

At the Peck Law Group, we use a structured, evidence-driven approach by analyzing capacity, consent, authority, and fairness through medical records, expert input, and case law. We also review how the agreement was presented and whether the facility can meet its legal burden.

We do not assume arbitration applies simply because a form exists.

If a facility is pushing arbitration early, that alone can be a sign that the issue deserves careful review.

Why Families Trust the Peck Law Group

The Peck Law Group has spent decades focused exclusively on elder abuse and neglect cases throughout California.

Our attorneys bring over 60 years of combined experience to this work. We follow a disciplined, preparation-driven approach that emphasizes medical record analysis, expert consultation, and accountability at every stage of a case.

We have successfully opposed hundreds of petitions to compel arbitration and have earned a reputation for thoroughness, preparedness, and a refusal to accept unsupported defense arguments.

Just as importantly, we emphasize clear communication. Families deserve straight answers, realistic expectations, and guidance that respects both the emotional and legal complexity of these cases. Speak with us today to learn more.

Frequently Asked Questions About Arbitration Agreements

Take the Next Step Toward Justice

Arbitration agreements are not absolute. Many can be challenged—especially when capacity, consent, or authority is in question.

At the Peck Law Group, we help families understand their options, evaluate arbitration agreements, and pursue accountability when long-term care facilities fail to protect residents.

If you have questions about an arbitration agreement or concerns about care at a long-term care facility, we invite you to contact us for a confidential case evaluation. We will walk you through your options, explain what each one means, and help you decide what makes the most sense for your situation.