Homework 3 – Essay Example
9.8 Reigelsperger v. Siller In August 2000, Terry Reigelsperger attended for treatment with chiropractor James Siller seeking relief for lower back pain. Two years later he sought treatment from Siller again. Subsequently, he sued Siller for malpractice with reference to the second treatment.
Siller sought to have the case referred to arbitration based on an informed consent form that Reigelsperger had signed after his first treatment in 2000. That agreement stated, “I intend this consent form to cover the entire course of treatment for my present condition and for any future condition(s) for which I seek treatment.” It also stated that any dispute be submitted to arbitration.
Does Reigelspergers lack of intent to return to Siller after his first treatment affect the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and consent form? Yes it does. Did Reigelsperger consent, yes. Did he proffer informed consent? No. Reigelsperger could not have foreseen that a second, but separate back problem would arise in two years: Nor could he have foreseen that he would find himself seeking treatment from Siller. Therefore, Reigelsperger was not able to offer informed consent because he could not possibly be aware or informed of future circumstances.
By way of illustration, suppose Siller had changed his profession and become a sky diving instructor. Further, consider the situation if Reigelsperger then decided to take sky diving instructions from Siller and was injured in the process. Would his consent have covered these unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances? Of course not. Similarly, Reigelsperger could not offer informed consent to a dispute resolution process when he could not foresee the dispute or the circumstances surrounding it.