What are the requirements for valid medical malpractice arbitration agreements in Utah? Stewart v. Bova Explained

Medical malpractice arbitration agreements are increasingly common in Utah healthcare settings, but the Utah Court of Appeals in Stewart v. Bova made clear that providers cannot take shortcuts when executing these agreements.

In this case, Glenna Stewart underwent a lumbar nerve root injection performed by Dr. Charles Bova at Pioneer Valley Hospital. Before the procedure, Stewart signed paperwork that included arbitration agreements, though she testified she was not verbally encouraged to read the materials or ask questions. When Stewart later sued for medical malpractice after experiencing complications, Dr. Bova moved to compel arbitration.

The trial court denied the motion to compel, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on the specific requirements of Utah Code section 78B-3-421. This statute mandates that for a binding arbitration agreement between a patient and healthcare provider to be validly executed, “the patient shall be verbally encouraged to: (i) read the written information required by Subsection (1)(a) and the arbitration agreement; and (ii) ask any questions.”

Dr. Bova argued that substantial compliance should be sufficient since Stewart acknowledged understanding the agreement’s terms. However, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Legislature used clear, specific language requiring verbal encouragement. The court noted that “the Legislature did not merely specify the goal; it also specified, in the clearest terms, the method by which that goal is to be attained.”

The court also addressed Dr. Bova’s concerns about proof difficulties, noting that healthcare providers know in advance they may need to prove compliance and can implement documentation systems accordingly. Judge Orme’s concurrence suggested practical solutions like checklists or patient affidavits to document compliance.

This decision underscores that Utah courts will strictly enforce the procedural safeguards in medical malpractice arbitration statutes, requiring actual compliance rather than substantial compliance with the Legislature’s patient protection requirements.