Thi of Nv at Henderson Convalescent, LLC v. Spierer ( 2013 )

 its effects are not readily ascertainable." D.R. Horton, 120 Nev. at 554, 96
P.3d at 1162. Often, procedural unconscionability includes "the use of fine
print or complicated, incomplete or misleading language that fails to
inform a reasonable person of the contractual language's consequences."
Id. Substantive unconscionability concerns the "one-sidedness of the
contract terms." Id. at 554, 96 P.3d at 1162-63. The focus is on whether
there are "terms that are oppressive." Gonski, 126 Nev. at , 245 P.3d at
1169 (internal quotations omitted). The degree of procedural or
substantive unconscionability required to invalidate an agreement is
analyzed on a sliding scale; the stronger a showing of either procedural or
substantive unconscionability, the less evidence is required for the other.
Gonski v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 126 Nev. , 245 P.3d 1164,
1169-70 (2010).
Having reviewed the briefs and appendices on appeal, we
conclude that the district court erred by ruling that the arbitration
agreement was unconscionable. The arbitration agreement was a
separate document that required the parties' signatures at the end. The
agreement explained what arbitration entailed and that agreeing to
arbitration meant forgoing a jury trial in court, and specifically stated that
the agreement was optional and that a refusal to sign the arbitration
agreement would not affect treatment availability. As a result, the
arbitration agreement was not unconscionable, particularly because the
agreement was optional and respondents could have refused to sign the
agreement.
The fact that the agreement was optional also negates the
district court's primary concern that the document was presented for
signature the day after the patient was admitted, as a refusal to sign the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
agreement would not have resulted in a refusal of treatment.
Additionally, while the lack of an explanation of the costs of arbitration
within the document is relevant to the determination of unconscionability,
we conclude that this was insufficient to meet the requirements for
unconscionability. D.R. Horton, 120 Nev. at 558, 96 P.3d at 1165.
Likewise, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement
relied upon by respondents do not demonstrate unconscionability.
Therefore, we conclude that the arbitration agreement is valid and
enforceable. Accordingly, we
ORDER the order of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order. 1
Gibbons
Douglas
C.1 J.
Saitta
'As appellant did not challenge on appeal the district court's ruling
concerning which parties were subject to the arbitration agreement, we do
not address that issue.
3
cc: Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge
Lansford W. Levitt, Settlement Judge
Marquis Aurbach Coffing
Rourke Law Firm
James R. Christensen
Maddox, Isaacson & Cisneros, LLP
Robert C. Maddox & Associates/Reno
Eighth District Court Clerk
4