A federal district court in Michigan has rejected a motion to "adjust" an arbitration award through a motion to confirm, holding that such adjustment amounts to award modification, which is not warranted by manifest disregard of the law.

In Grain v. Trinity Health, No. 03-72486, 2008 WL 441060 (E.D. Mich. Feb 14, 2008), physician Grain and Trinity Health arbitrated several contract disputes. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of Grain, including a provision for some of his attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Grain then moved for confirmation of the award, but simultaneously petitioned for adjustment of the fees and costs portion, alleging that the arbitrator had exceeded his authority and erred as a matter of law in those calculations.

The Court held that Grain's motion for partial confirmation and partial "adjustment" was essentially a motion for modification of the award, and must be supported by the narrow grounds for award modification contained in 9 U.S.C. § 11. Since Grain had presented no evidence that there was a material miscalculation or mistake, or that the arbitrator had rendered an award on a matter not submitted, there was no basis for modification of the award.

Grain argued that the arbitrator's errors amounted to "manifest disregard of the law," a valid non-statutory basis for a motion to vacate. The Court, however, noted that "manifest disregard" is only a valid basis for vacating, not modifying, an arbitration award in the Sixth Circuit.