Medical arbitration involves a hearing before a three-person panel. The medical facility or practitioner chooses one representative, the complainant another, each paying the fees for their own representative. The third member is a "neutral" party, whose fees are split between the two sides. Decisions are binding and cannot be appealed unless there's evidence of malfeasance on the part of that neutral participant on the panel.

Medical arbitration was a hot topic last year when physicians working for IHC and each of its facilities began requiring patients to sign arbitration agreements that said they would not seek to solve medical disputes in the courts but rather through binding arbitration.

IHC's move came after the Utah Legislature had earlier passed a law that said physicians could refuse to treat patients who would not sign the mandatory arbitration agreements.

It became so contentious that lawmakers revisited the issue this year, amending the law to make arbitration agreements voluntary, but tightening time lines for rescinding such agreements from 30 to 10 days. The amended law also allows relatives, heirs and other representatives of a patient who agrees to arbitration to be bound by the agreement, as well. And that is the central issue of the lawsuit.

During oral arguments earlier this month, several Utah Supreme Court justices questioned what parties should be included in arbitration agreements and whether such agreements deny surviving family members their right to a jury trial.

The legal importance of the Baker case is debatable, given that the law has changed since Gary Baker signed his agreement.

Loftis said there is a chance that the Supreme Court may hold off on ruling on this issue until they get a case that has developed under the current law. Baker's suit was filed under the old law.

Snyder, however, said he feels the case still deals with a constitutional issue, regardless of the change in law. "The Supreme Court could find that the law may run afoul of the Constitution," he said, adding there is a chance the justices may find that hospitals cannot hold third-party family members to the agreements.

Either way, the ruling will determine if Baker will be able to take IHC to court.

"If the high court upholds the arbitration agreement, it could mean that the surviving wife is forced into arbitration," Snyder said.

---

Contributing: Lois M. Collins.

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com