BROEMMER V. ABORTION SERVICES OF PHOENIX
840 P.2d 1013 (1992)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over an arbitration clause. Broemmer (P) requested
review of a decision, which held that an agreement to arbitrate, which P signed prior to
undergoing a clinical abortion at Abortion's (D) clinic, was an enforceable, albeit
adhesive, contract.
FACTS: Broemmer (P) sought medical attention to terminate a pregnancy. She was 21
unmarried and 16 or 17 weeks pregnant. She was a high school graduate earning less than $100
per week and had no medical benefits. The father to be insisted that she have an abortion
but her parents advised against it. P was in a state of considerable confusion and emotional
and physical turmoil. She went to D's clinic with her mother and was not given any
counseling or information other than three forms to sign; an arbitration agreement, a
consent to operate form, and questionnaire asking for a detailed medical history. P
completed all three forms in 5 minutes. There was no attempt to explain the agreements to P
before or after and D did not provide P with copies of the forms. The agreement to arbitrate
included language that any dispute arising between the parties as a result of fees or
services would be settled by binding arbitration. The arbitrators were to be licensed
medical doctors appointed by the AAA and who specialize in obstetrics or gynecology. P also
completed a two-page consent form and a questionnaire for a detailed medical history. After
pre-operation procedures were performed, P was then instructed to return the next day. P
returned the next day and Dr. Otto performed the abortion and P suffered a punctured uterus
that required medical treatment. P sued under malpractice in June 1988 about 1.5 years after
the medical procedure. P could not recall signing the agreement to arbitrate. D moved to
dismiss because of the consent to arbitration form. P submitted affidavits that remain
uncontroverted. D was granted summary judgment. The appeals court said the contract was one
of adhesion but was nonetheless enforceable because it did not fall outside P's reasonable
expectations and was not unconscionable. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment