Kohlman v. Grane Healthcare, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 296 (July 5, 2022) (Colins, J.) Highland Park appealed from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County overruling their POs that sought to compel arbitration of claims asserted against them by Kohlman, administratrix of the estate of Vincent. The Superior Court affirmed. The decedent signed a number of documents, including the arbitration agreement. The court said that decedent’s medical records showed she was receiving Oxycodone and Xanax from the day she was admitted through February 1st. The court went through all of the evidence. The record shows that arbitration provisions were omitted or not fully and accurately stated in the oral information given to decedent which was the only information decedent had when she decided to sign the arbitration agreement. Because decedent was not fully orally advised of this information and was denied the ability to obtain assistance from a family member or other person not employed by Highland Park who could read the arbitration agreement, the process by which decedent’s signature was obtained denied her a meaningful choice and therefore was procedurally unconscionable. On the issue of substantive unconscionability, the court said the rejected claims of substantive unconscionability are not to the contrary. We agree that imposing this additional expense on all claims for damages brought by resident unreasonably favors the nursing home and is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of substantive unconscionability where, as here, the record establishes the resident was not given full information concerning her choices or any opportunity to inform herself of what she was signing or to exercise her choices. Because the circumstances under which Highland Park obtained Decedent’s signature on the Arbitration Agreement imposed terms unfavorable to her without giving her any meaningful choice to accept or reject the Arbitration Agreement, the trial court correctly concluded that the Arbitration Agreement was unconscionable as a matter of law. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm the trial court’s order overruling the Highland Park Defendants’ preliminary objection to compel arbitration.