If you sign something without reading it the judge will take that to mean you're an idiot. Not a great way to look in front of a judge.
I think if it can be shown that the provider is making it difficult for the consumer to actually read the form before signing, a judge will actually be more upset with the provider.
What is a patient supposed to do in this case? Leave the office? What if this appointment was scheduled several months in advance, which is not an uncommon wait time? To put this in the way of a patient's health should not be acceptable.
Taken another way, this can’t work because otherwise everyone would just sign every contract without reading it and then get out of it later by saying they didn’t read it. Right?
And that would be a better world.
Other party: Did you read it before you signed it?
You: No
Other party: Why not
You: Nobody ever reads these things
Other party + Judge: :/
Now the onus is on the defense to show that it is not a common practice and who was responsible for that. Pretty excellent line to pursuit, hard to defend.
The onus is not on the one who says it the loudest, it's on the one who can provide proof. The defense can explain to the judge that they turn the screen to show it or whatever it's supposed to do.
There's no reason that the provider's testimony is magically preferred over the patient's, and in fact the generaly pratice is to resolve ambiguities in favor of the person who did not write the contract and is not the professional who has had plenty of pratice to know what they should be doing.
When it comes to he said she said you need actual evidence. The judge generally weighs what's said between both parties equally unless there's a reason not to.
(We're talking about boilerplate forms here for doctor's visits, not like your mortgage)