Court Overturns Rejection of Surgeon’s Arbitration Pact Because It Was Not in Spanish

An eye surgeon’s English language mandatory arbitration agreement with a patient is valid and enforceable where the patient claimed if it had been in his first language, Spanish, he would not have signed it.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has reversed a Superior Court that ruled in favor of the patient when it found that the surgeon’s “failure to translate” the arbitration agreement into Spanish amounted to “fraud in the inducement.”

But the high court has found the arbitration agreement valid and has remanded the case for the entry of an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the complaint against the doctor.

Prior to his elective eye surgery by Worcester surgeon Steven Stetson, Carlos Lopez signed a form agreeing to submit any disputes regarding the surgery to arbitration. Dissatisfied with the surgery, Lopez filed a medical malpractice complaint in the Superior Court, and Stetson moved to dismiss and to compel arbitration pursuant to the signed arbitration agreement.

In reversing the lower court judge, the state’s high court reviewed the “totality of the circumstances” and found the arbitration agreement was valid, there was no obligation to translate, the patient had ample opportunity to review the contract and ask questions, and there was no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation or coercion by the surgeon. The evidence also showed that the surgeon made a Spanish translator available but the patient did not avail himself of the interpreter.

Lopez had lived in Massachusetts for 12 years at the time of his surgery and had learned a “little bit” of English “on the streets,” which the Superior Court found was not sufficient to understand the document.

But the high court ruled that Lopez’s lack of facility with the English language did not require a different result. The court also stressed that it discerned no evidence of fraud by Stetson or anyone in his office to induce Lopez to sign.

“The general rule is that, in the absence of fraud, one who signs a written agreement is bound by its terms whether he reads and understands it or not. This rule applies to a person who cannot read,” the Supreme Judicial Court noted.

The high court said there was neither unfair surprise nor oppressive terms. It found that the arbitration agreement was brief and to the point and “entirely consistent” with state and federal policies that “heavily” favor submitting disputes to binding arbitration.

The court noted that under ordinary contract principles, “a party’s failure to read or understand a contract provision does not free him from its obligations.” Therefore, the court concluded, Lopez is bound by the arbitration agreement.