Incomplete Binding Arbitration Agreement for a Resident
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that the Binding Arbitration Agreement was properly explained and completed for Resident #63 during the recertification survey. The agreement, which was part of the admission packet, was sent via electronic mail to the resident's representative but was not completed correctly. The section for resident/representative acknowledgements was left incomplete, with no initials or signature indicating that the agreement, the ability to rescind, and the right to communicate with officials were explained. Despite this, the Business Office Manager signed off, indicating the resident was capable of making an informed decision, even though the resident had moderately impaired cognition and a health care proxy in place. Interviews revealed that the facility had been offering arbitration agreements for about six months, and the Business Office Manager included it as a voluntary option in the admission packet. However, they did not specifically ask residents to agree, relying instead on family members to assist in understanding. The Business Office Manager used a checklist to ensure understanding but did not know how to select an arbitrator or if the agreement could be presented in other languages. The agreement was not reviewed for completeness upon return, and the resident was added to the binding arbitration list without proper verification. The Administrator and Business Office Manager acknowledged the oversight, noting that the document signing website should not have marked the document as complete. They admitted that the facility should have reviewed and followed up on the incomplete agreement. The Administrator believed the representative understood the agreement because they accepted it on the form, but the Business Office Manager clarified that the agreement could only be rescinded within 30 days, despite the Administrator's belief that it could be rescinded at any time.
Penalty
Resources
Below are regulatory guidelines relevant to this citation:
The facility failed to clearly explain its binding arbitration agreement and to ensure residents and responsible parties understood that signing was optional and not a condition of admission or services. The arbitration form contained only a single signature line and was routinely stamped "accept" without a distinct option to accept or decline arbitration. A cognitively intact resident reported signing admission documents but not agreeing to binding arbitration. Another resident’s responsible party, who received the form by email in very small font, did not recall any verbal explanation, believed the document simply needed to be signed and returned with other admission papers, and stated there was no way to accept or decline arbitration and no intent to agree to binding arbitration. A third resident with moderate cognitive impairment stated he did not know he did not have to sign, nor that signing placed him into a binding arbitration agreement, and he did not want to agree to it. The Admissions Coordinator stated she was trained to have all residents sign the arbitration form on an electronic tablet and stamp it "accept" to show it had been read and explained, and the form did not clarify that this stamp reflected acknowledgment rather than agreement.
Facility staff did not ensure that residents and their representatives understood binding arbitration agreements included in the admission packet. Several cognitively intact residents and representatives, including individuals with multiple sclerosis, hemiplegia after stroke, rib fracture, heart failure, and other conditions, reported they did not recall signing arbitration documents, did not understand that signing waived their right to pursue court action, and were not clearly advised to seek legal counsel or informed of the legal implications. The admissions director stated she reviews the agreements after obtaining BIMS scores, explains that signing is voluntary and that disputes would go to the facility’s arbitrator, and tells signers they have 30 days to rescind, but her described rescission process differed from the written requirement in the document, and she relied on simply asking if they understood to assess comprehension.
The facility failed to properly explain binding arbitration agreements to two cognitively intact residents before obtaining their signatures. Policy required that arbitration be explained in a manner residents understand and clarified that disputes would be resolved by an arbitrator rather than through the judicial system. One resident did not recall any explanation and, when shown the signed agreement, stated they would not have agreed to it. Another resident believed signing would simply allow them to dispute issues and did not understand that it waived access to the courts; after the surveyor clarified this, the resident stated it had not been explained that way and they would not have signed. The BOM described arbitration to residents as a step before going to the legal system, which conflicted with the agreement’s language, while the NHA acknowledged the form barred use of the legal system and that residents should not sign documents they do not understand.
Surveyors found that the facility’s binding arbitration agreement did not clearly state that signing was not required for admission, despite facility policy stating arbitration is voluntary and not a condition of admission or care. The form used for multiple residents only indicated that signing was not a precondition to the “furnishing of services,” without explicitly addressing admission. During interview, the SSD acknowledged that this wording did not clearly communicate that admission was not dependent on signing the arbitration agreement.
The facility used an admission packet containing an Arbitration Provision that did not inform residents or their representatives of their right to rescind the agreement within 30 days or that signing it was not a condition of admission. All residents had signed arbitration agreements, and staff reported that the provision in the packet was the only written information provided, with explanations given verbally at admission. Administrative staff and an administrative nurse indicated that the provision had been created by a previous company and possibly altered by current leadership, and they were not aware of the specific regulatory language required to be included in the arbitration agreement.
The facility failed to ensure informed consent for a binding arbitration agreement by having two cognitively impaired residents, each only oriented to person and with very low BIMS scores, sign an “Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement” included in the admission packet. The agreement waived court, jury, and most appeal rights for non‑payment disputes, yet there is no indication it was explained in a form or language the residents could understand or that a representative participated. The NHA and DON acknowledged that the facility did not ensure these residents understood the conditions of the binding arbitration agreement.
Failure to Clearly Explain and Obtain Informed Choice on Binding Arbitration Agreements
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to clearly explain its binding arbitration agreement and to ensure residents and their responsible parties understood that signing was optional and not a condition of admission or services. The arbitration document stated that it was not a precondition to admission and could be rescinded within 30 days, but the form only provided a single signature line for the resident or responsible party, with no clear way to indicate acceptance or declination of arbitration. For one cognitively intact resident, the arbitration agreement was signed and stamped “accept,” yet the resident later stated that although he understood the general meaning of arbitration, he did not agree to binding arbitration when he signed the admission documents. Another resident with severe cognitive impairment had an arbitration agreement signed by a responsible party, which was also stamped “accept.” The responsible party reported receiving the agreement by email with very small font, did not recall any person explaining it, and believed there was only an option to sign and return it with other admission documents, with no way to accept or decline arbitration; he stated he did not intend to agree to binding arbitration. A third resident with moderate cognitive impairment signed an arbitration agreement that was stamped “accept” and later reported not knowing that signing was optional or that it placed him into a binding arbitration agreement, and stated he did not want to agree to binding arbitration. The Admissions Coordinator reported that all arbitration agreements were completed electronically on a tablet as part of the admission packet, that she was trained to have all residents sign the arbitration form and stamp it “accept” to show it had been read and explained, and that the form did not specify that the “accept” stamp was only to acknowledge explanation rather than agreement to binding arbitration.
Failure to Ensure Residents and Representatives Understood Binding Arbitration Agreements
Penalty
Summary
Facility staff failed to ensure that residents and/or their representatives understood the binding arbitration agreements included in the admission packet. The facility’s standard arbitration form stated that any disputes regarding services or health care provided by the facility would be resolved through binding arbitration, that signing the agreement waived statutory and constitutional rights to have claims decided in court before a judge and jury, and that signing was not a precondition for admission. The agreement also stated that the resident should seek legal counsel and that the agreement could be rescinded in writing within 30 days by certified mail. However, interviews with residents and representatives who had signed these agreements showed no evidence that staff clearly explained these provisions or confirmed that signers understood what they were agreeing to. One resident with multiple sclerosis, muscle spasms, contractures, anemia, and weakness was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 and had electronically signed the arbitration agreement as his own representative. He reported understanding the concept of arbitration generally but did not remember signing the facility’s arbitration agreement and stated he was not clear on what he was signing at the time. He did not recall the admissions staff clearly explaining that he should seek legal counsel before signing or that he would be giving up certain legal rights, and he stated that he would not have signed had he understood this. Another resident with dysphagia, hemiplegia following cerebral infarction, a gastrostomy, type 2 diabetes, cognitive communication issues, generalized muscle weakness, and gout had an initial BIMS score of 0, indicating severely impaired cognition, and a later BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The arbitration agreement for this resident was signed by the resident and an emergency contact as representative. During a telephone interview, the emergency contact stated they did not remember signing anything that would prevent the resident or family from taking the facility to court, and that the arbitration process and agreement were not made clear before signing. A third resident with rib fracture, protein-calorie malnutrition, atrial fibrillation, systolic congestive heart failure, generalized muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit was documented as her own responsible party and had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The arbitration agreement in her record was electronically signed by an emergency contact as her representative. The resident stated she did not remember signing any legal papers like that, noted there were many papers to sign at admission, and reported that a family member present at admission would not have allowed her to sign such a document. A fourth resident with hemiplegia, clavicle fracture, hematuria, generalized muscle weakness, adjustment disorder, and cognitive communication deficit had a BIMS score of 14 and a power of attorney as representative. The arbitration agreement was electronically signed by the representative, who later stated she did not understand what she was signing, was unsure how arbitration works, and was more focused on the resident’s health at the time. She did not recall being advised to seek legal counsel or being clearly informed that signing meant giving up the right to pursue legal action in court. The Director of Admissions reported that arbitration agreements are included in the admission packet and that she waits for a BIMS score before reviewing them with residents or representatives. She stated that for residents with BIMS scores of 12 or higher, she meets with the resident and/or representative to review the admission packet and arbitration agreement, and for residents with lower BIMS scores she meets with the representative if they wish to sign. She described asking whether they had heard of binding arbitration and explaining that by signing they agree to use the facility’s arbitrator rather than their own legal counsel for unresolved grievances, disputes, or legal matters, and that signing is voluntary and not required for admission. She also stated she tells them they have 30 days to change their minds, but acknowledged that the process she described for rescinding—contacting her by phone or in person so she can notify the regional office—is not outlined in the document itself, which specifies rescission by written notice via certified mail. When asked how she determines understanding, she stated that she simply asks if they understand, and surveyor interviews found no evidence that staff explanations ensured residents or representatives truly understood the binding arbitration agreements they signed.
Failure to Adequately Explain Binding Arbitration Agreements to Cognitively Intact Residents
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure that binding arbitration agreements were explained to residents in a form and manner they understood, and to obtain acknowledgment that they understood the agreements before signing. Facility policy dated 12/12/24 states that the facility asks all residents to enter into binding arbitration, that it is not a condition of admission or continued care, and that arbitration is a private process in which an independent arbitrator settles disputes. The policy further requires that the agreement be explained to the resident and/or representative in a way they understand. For one resident (R2), who had a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognition, the arbitration agreement signed and dated 1/22/26 stated that any legal dispute related to the admission agreement or services would be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration and not by a lawsuit or judicial process. During interview, R2 did not recall any conversation with the facility about binding arbitration, and upon review of the signed agreement with the surveyor, stated they would not want that. A second cognitively intact resident (R72), also with a BIMS score of 15, signed an arbitration agreement dated 2/5/26 containing the same language that disputes would be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration and not through the judicial system. In interview, R72 recalled being told there was a form to sign to allow them to dispute something and believed signing would allow them to dispute issues, but did not understand that disputes would be resolved by an arbitrator instead of the judicial system. After the surveyor explained that disputes would be handled by an appointed third party and not the courts, R72 stated it had not been explained that way and that they would not have signed if it had been. The Business Office Manager reported that they explain arbitration as a process where, in case of a dispute, the facility, resident/POA, and lawyers sit down to see if they can reach agreement before it goes to the legal system, and that if no agreement is reached it would go to court, which conflicts with the agreement’s language. The NHA acknowledged that the form states residents cannot use the legal system, that residents should not sign something they do not understand, and that staff should clearly understand and accurately explain the document to residents.
Arbitration Agreement Lacked Clear Statement That Signing Was Not Required for Admission
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure its binding arbitration agreement contained an explicit statement that signing the agreement was not a condition of admission, as required by its own policy and regulatory expectations. The facility’s Binding Arbitration Agreements policy dated 11/2023 stated that arbitration agreements are voluntary, that residents are not compelled, pressured, or coerced to enter into such agreements, and that it would be unambiguously communicated that arbitration is optional and not required as a condition of admission or to receive care. However, the actual arbitration agreement form used for three sampled residents included language stating only that execution of the arbitration agreement was not a precondition to the “furnishing of services” to the resident by the facility, without clearly addressing admission status. Record review showed that one resident’s representative signed the arbitration agreement, another resident’s representative refused to sign, and a third resident signed the agreement, all on the same form containing the “furnishing of services” language. For each of these residents, the agreement did not explicitly state that admission to the facility was not dependent on signing the arbitration agreement. During an interview, the SSD acknowledged that the portion of the binding arbitration agreement using the phrase “furnishing of services” did not clearly state that admission to the facility was not contingent on signing the agreement and stated that the wording was not clear enough. The administrator identified that 74 residents resided in the facility at the time of the survey.
Arbitration Agreement Lacked Required Rescission and Non-Condition of Admission Language
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure its arbitration agreement informed residents or their representatives of their right to rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing and that signing the agreement was not a condition of admission. With a census of 22 residents, all 22 had signed arbitration agreements, and there were no residents in active arbitration. Review of the admission packet showed that Exhibit E, titled Arbitration Provision, did not contain language notifying residents or representatives of the 30-day rescission right or that the arbitration agreement was optional and not required for admission. During interviews, an administrative staff member stated that the Arbitration Provision in the admission packet was the only information provided about the agreement and that she verbally explained it to new admissions when they signed, but there was no indication that the required language was included in writing. Another administrative nurse reported that the previous company had written the Arbitration Provision and that the current board and administrator might have modified it, and she was not aware of the specific language required to be included. A separate administrative staff member also stated they followed whatever the admission agreement said about the Arbitration Provision and acknowledged not being aware of the required elements of the provision. These findings demonstrate that the facility’s written arbitration documents, as provided to all residents at admission, lacked the federally required notifications regarding the right to rescind within 30 days and the non-mandatory nature of signing the arbitration agreement for admission, and that key administrative personnel were unaware of these specific regulatory requirements.
Failure to Ensure Informed Consent for Binding Arbitration Agreements
Penalty
Summary
The deficiency involves the facility’s failure to ensure residents’ rights to make informed decisions regarding a binding arbitration agreement at admission. The facility’s admission packet included an “Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement Between Resident and Facility” stating that, with the exception of payment disputes, all other disputes are governed by the agreement and that binding arbitration waives the right to a court trial, jury trial, trial by judge, and most appeals. For two residents, all admission documents, including this arbitration agreement, were signed by the residents themselves despite significant cognitive impairment documented at the time of admission. One resident was admitted with an admission assessment indicating alert and oriented to person only, a baseline care plan noting the resident could not communicate easily with staff and had cognitive needs, and a BIMS score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Another resident was admitted with an admission assessment also indicating alert and oriented to person only, a baseline care plan describing the resident as very confused, agitated, and yelling out, and a BIMS score of 2, also indicating severe cognitive impairment. In both cases, the residents personally signed the arbitration agreement, and there is no indication in the report that a representative was involved or that the agreement was explained in a form and manner the residents could understand. During interview, the Nursing Home Administrator and DON confirmed the facility failed to ensure residents understood the conditions of the binding arbitration agreement and that it was explained in a way, and in a language, they could understand for two of five sampled residents.
Trusted data from CMS and state health departments
Every citation, penalty and Plan of Correction is sourced from public CMS records (latest release May 27, 2026) and official state health department websites — never guesswork.
Trusted by long-term care providers and associations.
