ATTENTION PATIENTS: READ BEFORE YOU SIGN!
That’s the key takeaway from a new Pennsylvania Superior Court decision, which ruled that an alleged victim of medical malpractice is contractually obligated to file suit in Bucks County despite a state Supreme Court rule that allows medical malpractice victims to file suit in any county in which any of the defendants do business.
The Superior Court sided with defendants in the case and affirmed that a patient’s signed pre-surgery contract, mandating that any legal actions be heard in Bucks County, is valid and enforceable. The ruling upheld a lower court’s transfer of the case from Philadelphia County to Bucks County. The Supreme Court allows plaintiffs to file in a county other than the one where the injury occurred so that they can get a fair trial.
“Everyone knows that patients, many of whom are suffering severe trauma due to injury, are asked to sign lots of paperwork with fine print legalese that many don’t read, aren’t capable of reading or don’t understand,” said Paul Lyon, spokesman for the Northeastern PA Trial Lawyers Association. “In many cases, they are asked to provide electronic signatures on agreements they never even see. We believe the Supreme Court rule allowing appropriate selection of venue in every case should supersede any contractual clauses designed to hoodwink patients into giving up their legal rights.”
The Superior Court decision involved the case of Saramari Somerlot, who alleged negligence during a spinal surgery, which led to below-the-chest paralysis. Before the procedure, Somerlot signed a contract outlining potential risks and specifying Bucks County as the venue for any legal claims. Despite the state Supreme Court rule allowing lawsuits in any county where a defendant does business, which would have included Philadelphia County for co-defendant Boston Scientific, the Superior Court ruled that the venue-selection clause in the contract supersedes this procedural rule.
The court emphasized the “fundamental principles of contractual obligations,” stating that the venue rule only creates the possibility for a certain county to be proper, not a requirement. It clarified that parties are free to contractually limit venue to one of several available options. Furthermore, the court rejected the argument that the venue clause was unconscionable, noting its clear language and that Somerlot had the freedom to reject it. The court also suggested Somerlot should have acted, in effect, as her own legal counsel by reviewing, amending and negotiating the contract.
“If Ms. Somerlot did not want the venue-selection clause included in the consent-to-operate contract, she could have simply crossed it out, signed the form, and handed it back to Pain Management. This would have rejected the offer from Dr. Jung and Pain Management to perform the surgery in exchange for all the terms in the original form and made the counteroffer to proceed without the venue-selection clause,” the court said.
Doctors are required to explain to patients the risks and benefits or any procedure beforehand, not just put them in a legally binding contract. The Superior Court’s decision puts the burden back on patients to read and understand medical and legal jargon, and act as their own legal counsel in negotiating their treatment agreements. It also underscores the critical importance for patients to see and carefully review all documents before signing, as contractual agreements can significantly impact their legal rights and options –now more than ever.
