In a poorly lawyered case, this decision affirms an order denying a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the trial court properly held the arbitration clause was unconscionable.  It was procedurally unconscionable because it was a form contract presented to the patient only moments before the laser hair removal operation in a large stack of other paper she didn’t have time to review thoroughly.  The 30-day opt out provision of the clause was unclear about how a patient shou;ld opt out and so did not save it from procedural unconscionability.  The arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it exempted the kind of action defendant was likely to bring–collection suits–while requiring arbitration of medical malpractice claims.  Also, the arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable in requiring the patient to pay half of the arbitration fees and requiring three]-arbitrator arbitration, raising likely fees beyond the patient’s financial means.  The defendant also failed to introduce evidence to show that it was a licensed medical service provider entitled to invoke the more favorable provisions of CCP 1295.