Mental Health Practice Accuses Medical Technology Company of Fraudulent Contractual Practices

Ship to Shore Counseling, P.C., a mental health services practice, is embroiled in a legal battle over an arbitration clause with a medical technology company. The complaint was filed by Ship to Shore Counseling, P.C. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division on December 10, 2025, against Neuronetics, Inc. and its sales representative Mario Leone.

The case revolves around a commercial contract dispute between Ship to Shore Counseling and Neuronetics regarding the purchase of a NeuroStar Chair, a device used for transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy. Ship to Shore Counseling alleges that they were misled by Neuronetics into purchasing the chair under false pretenses, citing violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff argues that they did not have the sophistication or understanding required to assent to an arbitration clause embedded within the contract’s terms and conditions.

Christine Possemato, co-founder of Ship to Shore Counseling and principal involved in the transaction, contends that despite her extensive business experience and academic credentials—including an MBA—she was not equipped with legal knowledge necessary to comprehend the implications of waiving her right to litigation through arbitration. However, upon remand for limited discovery on this issue, it was revealed that Possemato had engaged in similar contracts before and possessed significant business acumen.

The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a clause in their Master Sales Agreement which mandated mediation followed by binding arbitration for any disputes arising from the agreement. Initially denied by the trial court due to perceived lack of sophistication on part of Ship to Shore Counseling, this decision was overturned on appeal. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of business competence and upheld that such parties are presumed capable of understanding standard contractual clauses like those mandating arbitration.

Plaintiff seeks relief from alleged deceptive practices by Neuronetics but faces procedural hurdles due to enforceable arbitration agreements. They argue against compelling arbitration without explicit waiver language as per Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group standards; however, courts have deemed sophisticated entities like theirs should reasonably anticipate such clauses.

Representing Ship to Shore Counseling is Kelly Law PC with attorneys Charles P. Kelly IV and Bradley Latino at the helm while Greenberg Traurig LLP represents Neuronetics with Aaron Van Nostrand and Clarissa Gomez leading their defense efforts. Judges Currier and Berdote Byrne presided over this case under Docket No. A-2851-24.