Eileen Hernandez, M.d., Petitioners v. Lualhati Crespo, Respondents

Summary

The court held that the medical-malpractice arbitration agreement was void as against public policy because it incorporated selected statutory arbitration provisions while omitting or altering protections and incentives required by the Medical Malpractice Act. The agreement therefore improperly shifted costs, arbitration procedures, liability consequences, and appellate rights in favor of the medical providers, and the court approved the decision below and remanded for further proceedings. Justice Pariente concurred to explain that the continuing existence of a malpractice crisis was irrelevant, while Justice Canady, joined by Justice Polston, would have upheld the private arbitration agreement.