Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix
173 Ariz. 148, 840 P.2d 1013 (1992) (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A provision in a contract of adhesion is unenforceable if it falls outside the reasonable expectations of the adhering party, particularly when it involves the waiver of a fundamental right and is not explained to the party under circumstances of vulnerability.
Facts:
- In December 1986, Melinda Kay Broemmer, a 21-year-old Iowa resident with a high school education and limited income, was 16-17 weeks pregnant and experiencing significant emotional turmoil.
- Her mother made an appointment for her to have an abortion at Abortion Services of Phoenix.
- Upon arriving at the clinic, Broemmer was escorted to a room and asked to fill out three forms: a consent-to-operate form, a medical history questionnaire, and an 'Agreement to Arbitrate.'
- Broemmer completed and signed all three forms in less than five minutes.
- Clinic staff did not explain the arbitration agreement, its terms, or that she could decline to sign it; they simply instructed her to complete the forms.
- The agreement stipulated that any dispute would be resolved by binding arbitration and that the arbitrators must be licensed medical doctors specializing in obstetrics/gynecology.
- The following day, Dr. Otto performed the abortion, during which Broemmer suffered a punctured uterus requiring further medical treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Melinda Broemmer filed a medical malpractice complaint against Abortion Services of Phoenix and Dr. Otto in the trial court.
- The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the signed arbitration agreement.
- The trial court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and granted it in favor of the defendants.
- Broemmer, the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the agreement was an enforceable contract of adhesion.
- Broemmer, the petitioner, successfully petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a standardized arbitration agreement, presented as a condition of medical treatment without explanation, enforceable against a patient when its terms fall outside of her reasonable expectations?
Opinions:
Majority - Moeller, J.
No, the agreement to arbitrate is not enforceable against the plaintiff. A contract of adhesion is not enforceable if it contains terms that are beyond the reasonable expectations of the adhering party. The court determined the agreement was a contract of adhesion because it was a standardized form presented on a 'take it or leave it' basis as a condition of treatment, with no opportunity for negotiation. The court then analyzed the plaintiff's reasonable expectations under the circumstances. Given Broemmer's emotional distress, high school education, lack of commercial experience, and the fact that the clinic staff did not explain the form or its implications, it was not within her reasonable expectations to understand she was waiving her fundamental right to a jury trial for any potential malpractice claim. The term requiring arbitrators to be OB/GYNs was an additional, unexplained term advantageous to the clinic that a patient would not reasonably expect. Therefore, the agreement is unenforceable.
Dissenting - Martone, J.
Yes, the agreement to arbitrate is enforceable. The dissent argues that the agreement was clear and conspicuous, with bold, capitalized text at the top reading 'PLEASE READ THIS CONTRACT CAREFULLY' and 'AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE.' Arizona public policy strongly favors arbitration as an efficient and valid method of dispute resolution. The dissent contends there is nothing 'bizarre or oppressive' about an arbitration clause that would place it beyond a party's reasonable expectations. The majority's decision reflects an outmoded judicial hostility toward arbitration and misapplies the reasonable expectations doctrine, which is meant for terms that contradict a negotiated deal or are truly bizarre, neither of which applies to a standard arbitration clause. The plaintiff, an adult, had the opportunity to read the document she signed, and it should be enforced.
Analysis:
This decision significantly extends the doctrine of reasonable expectations, previously applied primarily in insurance cases, to the context of medical services contracts. It establishes that courts will closely scrutinize standardized arbitration agreements presented to vulnerable consumers, especially when a waiver of fundamental rights like a jury trial is at stake. The ruling places an implicit duty on the drafter of an adhesion contract (like the clinic) to ensure the other party is aware of and understands such critical terms. This precedent has a broad impact on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer and medical contracts, reinforcing that standard contract law defenses are not displaced by the general public policy favoring arbitration.
Unlock the full brief for Broemmer v. Abortion Services of Phoenix