Patients in liability hot spots asked to arbitrate, not litigate

The Florida Medical Assn. educates physicians on how to reduce risks by asking patients to sign binding arbitration contracts before they enter the exam room.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Feb. 10, 2003.

What was a good business decision for an architect has been a good business decision for a physician.

Before Mas G. Massoumi, MD, had some work done on his home, his architect required him to sign a binding arbitration contract that sent the two sides to arbitration rather than court if any disputes arose.

"I thought if it worked for that business, it could work for me," said Dr. Massoumi, a hand surgeon in West Palm Beach, Fla. "It's a way of risk management."

He called his attorney and they drafted a contract.

That was more than a decade ago. Today, patients coming into his office are asked to sign the binding arbitration contract before they see Dr. Massoumi, and almost all do.

"The receptionist said maybe once or twice a year someone will refuse to sign it and leave," said Dr. Massoumi, who has not been sued or had the binding arbitration contract challenged in court.

As medical liability problems take hold in more than a dozen states, Dr. Massoumi's way of doing business -- one that was also in California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, commonly known as MICRA -- is getting a new look from physicians trying to protect themselves.

The idea has been discussed by physicians in Nevada, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. And the Florida Medical Assn. has traveled around the state in recent weeks hosting seminars for physicians on how to implement a binding arbitration contract.

Each state is on an American Medical Association list of states facing a medical liability crisis. Physicians in those areas are retiring early, leaving the state or discontinuing high-risk procedures because they either can't afford medical liability insurance or can't find a company to insure them.