Articles Posted in News

In January 2019, Amtrak sneakily added a forced arbitration clause into their ticket purchasing process. When a customer now wants to ride the Amtrak train, he or she is forced to agree to forced arbitration. Forced arbitration in this context means if the customer has any legal claims against the company, whether in the past, present, or future, the customer can now only bring his grievances to an individual arbitrator rather than to a trial by jury in a court of law or through class action.

The dangers of such a clause are profound and many. First, the clause was so subtly added that it only came to the attention of consumer advocates and political leaders in November 2019. Appalled, these advocates are calling on Congress to take action on behalf of train riders who would no longer have the same protections as those who brought their cases to the court in the past did. Such an immoral clause means the typical protections provided by a court of law and a jury would no longer be available to potential victims of violations from Amtrak. Consumers can only complete the purchase of their ticket if they sign and agree to enter forced arbitration in any case of injury, loss, or violation.

In 2015, when an Amtrak train derailed in Philadelphia, killing 8 and injuring over 200, the victims and their relatives were able to pursue redress through a class action lawsuit. The settlement reached by the parties was $245 million dollars. Although no amount of money could ever compensate for the loss or injury of human life, the protections the plaintiffs had under a court of law were a jury, a trial, and a judge—none of which are available under forced arbitration. They were able to have their case seen by their own peers, not an individual arbitrator hired by the company they were claiming damages against. In forced arbitration, it is the individual arbitrator who ultimately decides the compensation of the parties. This course of action is significantly cheaper and favorable for Amtrak and will not result in the same vindication provided by a trial and court of law. In fact, often times, the arbitrators subtly write in language that are favorable to the companies hiring them.

The consequences of lack of communication between hospitals and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are not new knowledge. According to a 2013 study, in the U.S. alone, more than 5 million patients transition from hospital to SNFs yearly. These transitions heavily rely on the thorough communication of healthcare professionals and paraprofessionals to ensure adequate care for patients. However, hospitals and local SNFs typically operate as separate entities causing a myriad of miscommunication. Communication issues that may happen between the facilities include incomplete, contradicting and/or mismatching verbal and written care plans. These problems may cause SNF staff to delay—or never deliver—proper care for patients, resulting in potentially fatal consequences. For example, noting the wrong medication can cause a stroke patient to relapse into another stroke and an avoidable hospital readmission. While many factors can be used as scapegoats to explain these mistakes, these problems are not new, and as professionals in the field, SNFs should establish better communication and points of accountability before accepting a patient to ensure the dignity and quality of care of patients. A recent study published by the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society by multiple medical doctors have indicated that a significant number of hospital readmissions from SNFs were likely preventable.

Continue Reading