In a recent decision, the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division upheld an order compelling arbitration in a case involving the estate of Thomas Harasym against Cambridge Operator LLC, a nursing home facility. The court ruled that the arbitration agreement signed by Harasym's wife during his admission was valid, despite arguments from the plaintiffs that the defendants had waived their right to arbitration.
The case, docket number A-1859-25, centers around claims of medical negligence and wrongful death following the death of Thomas Harasym in 2023. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of arbitration agreements in healthcare settings, which can limit patients' and their families' access to court.
Background
The plaintiffs in this case are Maureen Harasym, acting individually and as the executor of her late husband Thomas Harasym's estate. They filed a complaint against Cambridge Operator LLC, which operates the Cambridge Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, along with other related entities and individuals, alleging medical negligence, wrongful death, and violations of residents' rights under New Jersey law.
The dispute arose from an admission agreement that Maureen Harasym signed in September 2022 when her husband was admitted to the facility. This agreement included clauses requiring disputes to be resolved through mediation and, if that failed, through binding arbitration. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had waived their right to enforce this agreement by engaging in litigation for over a year before moving to compel arbitration.
The trial court initially ordered the parties to mediation but later allowed the defendants to move to compel arbitration, leading to the plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs contended that the arbitration clause was invalid due to a lack of clarity regarding arbitration rules and that it constituted a contract of adhesion.
The Ruling
The Appellate Division, in its decision dated October 22, 2026, affirmed the trial court's ruling to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was valid at the time it was signed and that the plaintiffs did not revoke it within the allowed timeframe. The court noted that the defendants had raised the arbitration issue in their answer to the complaint, which indicated they had not waived their right to arbitration.
The court ruled, "The arbitration agreement was valid when it was signed; ... plaintiffs would not suffer prejudice by proceeding to arbitration."
The judges on the panel, Marczyk and Puglisi, emphasized that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the defendants had strategically delayed invoking the arbitration clause. They also pointed out that the plaintiffs had not suffered significant prejudice from the delay in arbitration.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for similar cases involving arbitration agreements in healthcare settings. By upholding the enforcement of such agreements, the court reinforces the legal principle that patients and their representatives may be bound by the terms they agree to upon admission to a facility. This decision may deter future attempts to challenge the validity of arbitration agreements in similar contexts.
The ruling also clarifies the factors that courts consider when determining whether a party has waived its right to arbitration. The court's analysis of the totality of circumstances, including the absence of dispositive motions and the timing of the arbitration request, provides a framework for future cases involving arbitration disputes.
What's Next
While the plaintiffs can no longer pursue their claims in court, they may still seek to appeal the decision to a higher court. However, the enforceability of arbitration agreements in New Jersey is well-established, making it challenging for the plaintiffs to succeed in such an appeal. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases pending.