A New Jersey nursing home's arbitration agreement, featuring a "dense and meandering" first sentence of more than 200 words, among other problematic features, was deemed void by a state appeals court.

"To put it bluntly, this arbitration provision posed a number of problems," the Appellate Division said Wednesday in Estate of Bright v. Aristacare at Cherry Hill.

"Among other things, the first sentence is over two hundred words in length, making it difficult, if not impossible to follow," the panel added, pointing out several other issues with the agreement and its execution, including a litigation waiver that applied only to the patient, and the designation of the American Arbitration Association as arbitrator even though AAA ceased hearing nursing home disputes of this type in 2003 and no longer has rules on such cases.

The ruling affirms the denial of compelled arbitration handed down by Camden County Superior Court Judge Anthony Pugliese in the case, lodged over the August 2016 death of Maureen Bright, at the time a resident of Aristacare at Cherry Hill. The arbitration agreement at issue was executed around the time of Bright's April 2016 admission to the facility, according to the court's decision.

"The way they wrote the arbitration clause was clearly intended to be deceptive," said the estate's lawyer, Jonathan Lauri of Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, by phone. "Writing that [first] sentence is no easy task. After reading it the first time, I had to read it 15 or 20 times—and I'm an attorney."

Jessica Smith of Mauro Lilling Naparty in Woodbury, New York, who argued the appeal for Aristacare, and Frances Deveney of Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly in Cherry Hill, trial court counsel to the nursing home, couldn't be reached for comment on the case.

According to the decision, Bright took residence at Aristacare following hospitalization for a second leg amputation, and her daughter, Charmaine Bright, signed the arbitration agreement contained on page 10 of the 24-page package of admissions documents. Charmaine Bright lacked power of attorney for her mother, and "[n]o one from Aristacare reviewed the documents with Charmaine, or told her she could have an attorney examine the package of papers before she signed them," the panel noted.

The agreement provided in part that "ANY CLAIM OR DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES … SHALL BE DECIDED EXCLUSIVELY BY MANDATORY, FINAL, BINDING ARBITRATION AND NOT IN COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL," language that commences in the 12th line of the document's first sentence, according to the decision, which included a copy of the full agreement.

The arbitration document, later produced for the lawsuit, revealed that Maureen Bright did sign it herself at some point, though the signature was not dated, the court said.

After the elder Bright's death, the estate, through Charmaine Bright, filed suit claiming that the facility's negligence caused her death.

Aristacare has denied the allegations, contending that it fulfilled its duties and obligations to the patient, according to electronic court documents.

Pugliese in February 2019 denied Aristacare's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, finding that there was no meeting of the minds on the agreement.

The nursing home appealed, and the case was stayed in August 2019 pending the Appellate Division's ruling, court records showed.

In their per curiam decision Wednesday, Appellate Division Judges Jose Fuentes, Michael Haas and Catherine Enright affirmed, holding that the arbitration agreement contravened the principles of Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp. because it was "written in a way that would not lead to a nursing home patient obtaining a 'clear and mutual understanding of the ramifications of' agreeing to it."

"The dense and meandering first sentence is simply too lengthy to ensure comprehension, especially in the absence of any assistance from the facility," the panel said.

The court added that Aristacare "directed Charmaine to sign the forms where indicated even though she was emotionally distraught by her mother's condition," and while Maureen Bright apparently signed it at some point, "the facility's nursing staff was aware that Maureen was heavily medicated, suffering hallucinations, and unaware she was in a nursing home" at the time of her admission.

Among the agreement's other problematic provisions was an unconscionable bar to a patient seeking punitive damages, the court also noted.