In January 2020, 90-year-old Beverly became a resident at the senior care facility Aegis Living. During the admissions process, Beverly’s son, Robert Parker, executed several documents on behalf of Beverly as her medical power of attorney. Robert had little experience with contracts and was rarely responsible for executing documents about Beverly’s care. Typically, his sister Christie signed any contracts related to their mother’s care. But he signed the paperwork required for Beverly’s residency at Aegis Living because her “needs had become urgent.”
Five months later on June 11, 2020, Robert signed Aegis Living’s Arbitration Agreement. Robert did not remember reviewing or signing the document. The Arbitration Agreement provided that any claims or disputes between Beverly and Aegis “arising from or related to the Residence and Care agreement entered into by the parties on January 14th, 2020” or to Beverly’s residency, care, or services at Aegis, “including, without limitation claims and disputes regarding personal injury, neglect, statutory or regulatory violations, and wrongful death, shall be arbitrated.” But it also excluded certain claims from arbitration, including unlawful detainer actions, actions for discharge or transfer from Aegis Living, claims for injunctive or equitable relief, actions for the appointment of a guardian ad litem, or any claims that could be brought in small claims court “unless both parties agree to arbitrate such proceedings.”
On July 23, 2021, Beverly sustained a severe fall when the caregiver assigned to provide constant overnight monitoring left her unattended. The caregiver found Beverly on the floor and called for help. Both Aegis Living and the caregiver assessed Beverly and lifted her back into bed. They gave her Tylenol and ice for her hip but provided no further treatment. By July 30, 2021, Beverly had not improved, so Aegis Living ordered X-rays, which showed that Beverly had sustained a hip fracture from the most recent fall. As a result of Beverly’s falls, she became permanently unable to walk and experienced increased cognitive decline. Beverly was later transferred to hospice care and died on January 3, 2023.
Aegis Living moved the trial court to compel arbitration under the Arbitration Agreement. The trial court denied Aegis Living’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable because it is substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The trial court determined that it was substantively unconscionable based on (1) the costs provision; (2) the confidentiality provision; (3) the subject-matter exclusions that leave the agreement, “in part, one-sided” by covering “all potential claims by Plaintiff but only some with notable exceptions by Defendant Aegis [Living]”; and (4) “the discovery limitations imposed by the FAA [that] also create onesidedness” by limiting Christie’s “ability to gather information related to the healthcare and treatment of Beverly.” The trial court determined that the Arbitration Agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it provides “insufficient clarity as to the arbitration process.” The trial court also concluded that the unconscionability “permeates the entire Agreement,” so the provisions “cannot be severed.” Aegis Living appealed.
The Court of Appeals of the State of Washington held in its unpublished opinion filed on June 29, 2026 that the exclusions are one-sided and substantively unconscionable. The Washington appellate court further stated that the United States Arbitration Act (FAA), Title 9 U.S.C., “prohibits Christie from conducting any prehearing discovery. And the Arbitration Agreement is otherwise silent about what rules, if any, govern the exchange of information. With no opportunity to conduct discovery, Christie cannot develop her legal claims. Only Aegis Living would have access to its employees and documents, while Christie would have far greater difficulty uncovering sufficient facts to prepare for arbitration. As a result, the Arbitration Agreement’s discovery limitations unreasonably favor Aegis Living: “an enforceable arbitration agreement must provide for “ ‘more than minimal discovery’ ” … [t]he Arbitration Agreement here does not, so the discovery limitations are substantively unconscionable.”
Aegis Living also argued that the trial court erred by finding the confidentiality provision substantively unconscionable. The Washington appellate court stated: “the Arbitration Agreement provides, “Except as necessary in judicial review of arbitration proceedings, all matters relating to arbitration shall be confidential, including the existence and subject of the arbitration.” This provision is like those in Zuver and Mckee because it is one-sided. It is a strict confidentiality provision favoring a possible repeat player—Aegis Living. The provision hampers Christie from learning about potentially meritorious claims or proving a pattern of wrongdoing and tilts the scales in favor of Aegis Living. As a result, the confidentiality provision is substantively unconscionable.”
“Here, the subject-matter exclusions, discovery limitations, and confidentiality provision are substantively unconscionable and pervade the Arbitration Agreement. So, we cannot sever them, and the Arbitration
Agreement is unenforceable.”
“We affirm the trial court’s order denying Aegis Living’s motion to compel arbitration.”
Source Christie Parker v. Aegis Senior Communities LLC, No. 87830-1-I.
Visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice attorneys (nursing home claim attorneys) in your U.S. state who may assist you with your nursing home claim, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
