Arbitration Agreement Lacks Required Neutrality and Venue Provisions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that its binding arbitration agreement included all required components as outlined in its own policy and federal regulations. Specifically, the agreement did not provide for the selection of a neutral arbitrator agreed upon by both parties, nor did it include language allowing for the selection of a venue that was convenient to both parties. The facility's policy stated that residents or their representatives should have the opportunity to suggest an arbitrator and venue, and that both should be agreed upon by both parties, with documentation provided if there was disagreement. However, the actual arbitration agreement only allowed for the selection of an arbitrator from a list provided by a contracted provider and mandated that the hearing be held in the county where the facility is located, without input from the resident or their representative. During staff interviews, the social services assistant confirmed that the arbitration agreement did not contain information about the selection of a neutral arbitrator or a mutually convenient venue. The assistant also noted that information about residents' rights to speak with surveyors or ombudsmen was included in a separate admission agreement, not in the arbitration agreement itself. The assistant had been trained on the arbitration agreement but acknowledged these omissions, and reported that no residents had refused to sign the agreement.