arbitration based on the “egregious substantive uneonscionability of the terms of the agreement” and also concluding that “some quantum of procedural unconscionability” existed, where the nursing home administrator did not explain that agreeing to arbitration was not a condition of admission); Small v. HCF of Perrysburg, Inc., 159 Ohio App.3d 66, 2004-Ohio-5757, 823 N.E.2d 19, at ¶¶ 6, 9, 25-28 (determining there was procedural uneonscionability where a nursing home resident’s wife signed an arbitration clause in a matter of minutes, without having the clause explained, and under the stress of her semi-conscious husband being admitted to the facility and immediately transported to a hospital); Howell v. NHC Healthcare-Fort Sanders, Inc., 109 S.W.3d 731, 732, 735 (Tenn.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). {46} The procedural uneonscionability
holding that for an act to be inconsistent with the right to arbitrate and thus constitute a waiver of that right it must repudiate the right of the party who does the act holding that an agreement to arbitrate was not binding where the nursing home employee who presented admission paperwork to a residents illiterate husband took it upon herself to explain the contract rather than asking him to read it and  did not mention much less explain that he was waiving a right to a jury trial holding that admission contained in an answer was binding despite the fact that it was made on information and belief holding that an employers reservation of right to alter amend or revoke the arbitration policy in an employee handbook did not invalidate the binding agreement to arbitrate employment disputes holding it is impossible to apply the substantial evidence test where the alj has failed to sufficiently explain his decision