A state appellate court has ruled that a nursing home patient who sued for negligence is not bound to an arbitration agreement he knew nothing about.

The Appellate Division upheld a Somerset County judge's ruling that defendant Kindred Hospital could not compel arbitration. The appeal was heard by Judges Carmen Alvarez and Karen Suter.

According to their per curiam opinion, plaintiff John Ricciardi's complaint alleges that Kindred's  negligence caused him to develop multiple advanced-stage pressure ulcers, resulting in "'great pain, suffering, disability, loss of quality of life and medical expense.'"

When he was admitted to the nursing facility, Ricciardi, who lives with multiple sclerosis, had trouble concentrating and was dizzy, nauseous, and light-headed. At that time, he was presented with 12 admission documents that required his signature, according to the Oct. 23 opinion.

"As instructed, Ricciardi signed the admission paperwork in twelve different places. The time noted by his signatures indicated he signed every document within one minute. Ricciardi was provided copies of three admission documents, but not of the arbitration agreement," the opinion said.

"This despite the fact the agreement stated his signature was not a precondition to treatment, and that he could cancel the arbitration agreement within five days. The Kindred employee who walked Ricciardi through the process did not explain the arbitration agreement," the panel added. "He was only told he needed to sign all the paperwork."

The court said there was ample evidence to support the trial court's conclusion.

"And, as a matter of law, the arbitration agreement lacked the mutuality of assent necessary for it to be binding on both parties," the opinion said, pointing to the 2010 Appellate Division decision Moore v. Woman to Woman Obstetrics & Gynecology.

"In Woman to Woman, Moore had fifteen days to withdraw from the agreement, Ricciardi had only five," the panel said. "But since neither was given a copy of the document, or had any idea regarding its content, the time afforded to them was meaningless. As a practical matter, because neither plaintiff knew what they were signing, the amount of time in which to revoke made no difference."

David C. Donohue of Farkas & Donohue represents the hospital and did not respond to a request for comment.

Ricciardi is represented by Sherri Lee Warfel of Stark & Stark, who also did not respond to a request for comment.