Problems When Contracts of Adhesion are Offered to Mental and Behavioral Health Providers
A Discussion Paper
Contracts of adhesion present significant challenges for mental and behavioral health providers, particularly when such contracts contain ambiguous, misleading, ill-informed, unfair, unethical, or unconscionable requirements. When providers sign these contracts, several critical problems arise:
Power Imbalance
Contracts of adhesion are typically drafted by one party with significantly more power and resources, leaving the other party with little to no ability to negotiate terms. This power imbalance forces providers to accept unfavorable conditions that they might otherwise contest. For instance, a large health plan may dictate terms that small private practices must accept to continue operating, leaving providers with limited bargaining power.
Case Example: Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank National Association
Summary: In this case, LaSalle Bank, a large institution, used its superior bargaining power to enforce a contract of adhesion against Armstrong, a smaller entity. The court recognized the significant power imbalance and voided certain unconscionable clauses.
Reference: Armstrong v. LaSalle Bank National Association, 552 F.3d 613 (7th Cir. 2009). Case Summary
Voidable Clauses
Clauses that are voidable may be included to discourage providers from contesting them, even if they are legally unenforceable. The cost and effort to challenge these clauses in court can be prohibitively high. This tactic can lead to providers unknowingly agreeing to terms that might be harmful or unfair. For example, a contract might include a non-compete clause that is voidable but expensive to litigate, effectively preventing providers from seeking better opportunities elsewhere.
Case Example: Harris v. Blockbuster Inc.
Summary: This case involved a clause in Blockbuster's user agreement that was deemed voidable. The clause included an arbitration agreement that was hidden within the contract terms. The court found the clause unenforceable due to its unfair nature.
Reference: Harris v. Blockbuster Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009). Case Summary
High Litigation Costs
The high cost of litigation can deter providers from pursuing legal action to challenge unjust or illegal terms. Avoiding litigation can lead to continued exploitation or unfair treatment, as the entity drafting the contract faces little risk of being held accountable. Small practices, in particular, may not have the financial resources to engage in prolonged legal battles, leaving them vulnerable to exploitative terms.
Case Example: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
Summary: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of arbitration clauses in contracts of adhesion. The court upheld the arbitration clause, which made it prohibitively expensive for consumers to litigate, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals in such scenarios.
Reference: AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011). Case Summary
Financial and Emotional Burden
The financial strain of potential litigation, combined with the emotional toll of dealing with legal battles, can be overwhelming for providers. These burdens detract from their ability to focus on patient care and personal well-being. Providers may find themselves spending significant time and resources dealing with contract disputes rather than focusing on delivering quality care to their patients.
Case Example: O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Summary: Drivers for Uber filed a class-action lawsuit challenging their classification as independent contractors. The case highlighted the financial and emotional burdens placed on the drivers, who faced high costs and significant stress while litigating against a well-resourced company.
Reference: O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 82 F. Supp. 3d 1133 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Case Summary
Professional Risks
Providers may fear professional repercussions, such as damage to their reputation or loss of employment opportunities, if they challenge a contract. This fear can lead to a reluctance to assert their rights or seek legal recourse, perpetuating the cycle of compliance with unfair terms. For instance, challenging a powerful health plan might result in blacklisting or other forms of professional ostracization.
Case Example: Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC v. Sanlip
Summary: A franchisee of Dunkin' Donuts challenged the termination of their franchise agreement, which contained several adhesion clauses. The franchisee faced significant professional risks, including damage to their reputation and financial stability.
Reference: Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC v. Sanlip, 428 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Pa. 2006). Case Summary
Reduced Quality of Care
Unfair contract terms can impact the quality of care providers can offer. Financial pressures or restrictive clauses can limit their ability to make patient-centered decisions. For example, a contract might include stipulations that prioritize cost-saving measures over patient care, forcing providers to adhere to guidelines that may not align with the best interests of their patients.
Case Example: Doe v. U.S. Health Care Systems
Summary: In this case, healthcare providers challenged contract terms imposed by a large health system that restricted their ability to provide patient-centered care. The court found that the contract’s terms negatively impacted the quality of care.
Reference: Doe v. U.S. Health Care Systems, 136 F.3d 83 (2nd Cir. 1998). Case Summary
Legal Uncertainty
Voidable clauses create a level of legal uncertainty that can complicate a provider's practice. Providers may be unsure of their rights and obligations, leading to confusion and potential legal disputes. This uncertainty can disrupt practice operations and erode trust in contractual agreements.
Case Example: Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc.
Summary: This case involved an employment contract that included several ambiguous and potentially voidable clauses. The legal uncertainty created by these clauses led to significant disputes and confusion about the parties' rights and obligations.
Reference: Nino v. Jewelry Exchange, Inc., 609 F.3d 191 (3rd Cir. 2010). Case Summary
Exploitation and Abuse
The existence of unfair and expensive-to-litigate clauses can foster an environment where exploitation and abuse of providers is normalized. This perpetuates a cycle of unfair treatment and limits the professional autonomy of mental and behavioral health providers. Exploitative contracts can become a standard practice, undermining the ethical foundation of the healthcare system.
Case Example: Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc.
Summary: The case involved a reverse mortgage contract that was found to be exploitative and unconscionable. The court held that the terms were excessively one-sided, highlighting the potential for abuse in contracts of adhesion.
Reference: Flores v. Transamerica HomeFirst, Inc., 93 Cal. App. 4th 846 (2001). Case Summary
Addressing These Problems
To address these issues, it is crucial to advocate for fair contract practices, legal reform to protect providers from exploitative terms, and access to affordable legal resources. Specific measures include:
Raising Awareness: Educate providers about the risks associated with contracts of adhesion and the importance of reviewing contract terms thoroughly.
Legal Reform: Advocate for laws that protect providers from unfair contract terms and ensure that contracts are equitable and just.
Affordable Legal Resources: Provide access to affordable legal services so providers can challenge unfair contracts without prohibitive costs.
Professional Support: Create support networks for providers to share information and resources about fair contracting practices.
Regulatory Oversight: Implement regulatory measures to oversee contract practices in the healthcare industry and ensure compliance with ethical standards.
By addressing these issues, the mental and behavioral health field can move toward more equitable and sustainable contracts, contracts that support both providers and patients.
DISCLAIMER and PURPOSE: This discussion document is intended for training, education, and research purposes only. The information contained herein is based on the data and perspectives available at the time of writing. It is subject to revision as new information and viewpoints emerge.
For more information see: https://www.mentorresearch.org/disclaimer-and-purpose