Abell v. Bardstown Medical Investors, Ltd., 3:11-cv-00086

Plaintiff Christine Abell, age 74, was admitted to Bardstown Life Care Center after a back injury and L1 fracture.
Prior to admission, Plaintiff’s screening noted a 'major mental disorder' but no documented impairment or sub-average intellect.
During registration, Defendant obtained 37 signatures on various documents, including a two-page Voluntary Agreement for Arbitration.
The Agreement provides that both parties waive jury/trial rights and proceed to arbitration, with each party bearing its own costs and without precondition to treatment.
Kentucky law favors enforcement of arbitration agreements; the burden shifts to the party challenging enforceability after prima facie evidence.
The court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice, finding no basis to void the Agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the arbitration agreement enforceable despite alleged unconscionability?	Abell contends procedural unconscionability due to signing under duress and preadmission circumstances.	Defendant argues the agreement was clearly disclosed, separated from admission documents, and not procedurally unconscionable.	Arbitration is enforceable; no procedural unconscionability established.
Did Plaintiff lack mental capacity to enter the arbitration agreement?	Abell asserts mental incapacity at the time of execution due to a major mental disorder.	No clear and convincing evidence shows inability to understand the agreement at execution.	Burden not met; Plaintiff lacked none of the required capacity at signing; arbitration compelled.
Are there grounds to refuse enforcement based on procedural factors in Kentucky unconscionability doctrine?	Procedural unconscionability due to the signing process and document placement.	Court found the signing process and disclosure adequate; not unconscionable.	Procedural unconscionability not proven.

Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v. Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335 (Ky.App. 2001) (arbitration unconscionability standards and burden shifting)
Highlands Wellmont Health Network, Inc. v. John Deere Health Plan, Inc., 350 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2003) (federal/arbitration preference and unconscionability framework)
Louisville PETERBILT, Inc. v. Cox, 132 S.W.3d 850 (Ky. 2004) (burden shifting in enforcing arbitration agreements)
Revlett v. Revlett, 118 S.W.2d 150 (Ky.App. 1938) (presumption of sanity and capacity in contract execution)
Hall v. Crouch, 341 S.W.2d 591 (Ky. 1961) (capacity to contract requires understanding of the transaction)