Background
David Figueroa entered Roosevelt Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center after a spinal-cord injury left him paraplegic. He later alleged that the facility used and managed a latex catheter despite his known allergy, causing injury. Nearly four months after admission, an employee presented him with a tablet running electronic admissions software. A general starting screen contained an electronic-consent checkbox and a place for his signature.
An identical signature later appeared on an attached alternative-dispute-resolution agreement that described arbitration as optional and waived a jury trial. Figueroa testified that he never saw that agreement, never clicked an acceptance control for it, and never met the administrator whose signature appeared beside his. The facility did not depose the employee who actually presented the tablet. Its administrator described customary intake practice but remembered nothing about Figueroa’s transaction.
The record also showed that the software populated dates and job titles, may have reused signatures, and inserted marks into boxes. Several resident signature lines remained blank, and the box confirming that a representative had presented the arbitration agreement was unchecked. The facility offered no technical evidence explaining when or why the software copied a signature onto a document. The Philadelphia trial court found no contract and refused to compel arbitration.
The Court’s Holding
In a nonprecedential memorandum by Judge Bowes, the Superior Court affirmed. A party seeking arbitration must first prove a valid agreement and then show the dispute falls within its scope. The first inquiry is ordinary contract formation: outward and objective conduct must manifest assent, judged from what a reasonable person would understand under all surrounding circumstances. The proponent bears that burden even though Pennsylvania policy favors enforcement of agreements actually made.
The appearance of an electronic signature was not enough on this record. Such a signature is evidence of acceptance only when it reflects a deliberate act by the purported signer. Figueroa denied seeing or accepting the arbitration terms, and the facility presented no evidence that a signature could appear on the page only after a user clicked a particular button. Evidence that the program automatically supplied other entries supported the trial court’s conclusion that software may have placed the signature without Figueroa’s action.
The administrator’s general description of usual practice did not compel a contrary result. He lacked a transaction-specific memory, could not say whether Figueroa read the agreement, and conceded that the presentation-confirmation box was blank. Because the facility proved neither actual knowledge nor reasonably obvious notice followed by a clear act of acceptance, no arbitration contract formed. The court therefore did not reach scope or conscionability.
Key Takeaways
- An electronic signature proves assent only when evidence connects it to a deliberate act by the person to be bound.
- The party seeking arbitration should explain the software workflow, including what the user saw and what action generated each signature.
- Custom-and-practice testimony may be insufficient when the witness lacks a specific memory and the document contains contrary indicators.
- Policy favoring arbitration does not relax the threshold requirement of contract formation.
Why It Matters
Figueroa is a practical warning for nursing facilities, hospitals, and other businesses using tablet-based contracting. Audit logs, screen captures, timestamps, click records, and testimony from the actual presenter may determine whether an arbitration clause is enforceable. A flattened document displaying a copied signature does not necessarily reveal the consumer’s conduct.
For plaintiffs, discovery should target how the platform renders optional agreements and propagates signatures across a packet. For defendants, the safest process separately displays the arbitration terms, requires an unmistakable affirmative act, preserves the event log, and records that the agreement was presented. Those controls matter especially where admission is not conditioned on arbitration.