Health Administration Responsibility Project
Some Arguments against Mandatory Arbitration

1. The higher costs of mandatory arbitration are not "neutral" as applied to consumers.

2. Arbitrators are more likely to be biased toward the defense.

3. Procedurally, arbitration is not as "neutral" a forum as Trial, as applied to managed health care disputes.

4. Arbitration may not decrease conflict in the long run.

5. Self-serving "agents" should not waive constitutional rights of their "principals" without explicit authorization.

6. Increased Due Process should be given, especially to tort victims forced into mandatory arbitration by adhesionary contracts.

7. A judicial bias toward arbitration may breed injustice.

HARP Home Page Top of Page

Please send comments, suggestions and relevant citations to