|
Without any record that material evidence was actually excluded from an arbitration hearing, the California Court of Appeal refused to vacate an arbitral award on the basis of the arbitrator's alleged failure to hear such evidence.
In Vincent v. Belt, No. E038884, 2006 WL 3530724 (Cal. App. 4 Dist. Dec. 8, 2006), Vincent prevailed in arbitration against Belt, a police officer who allegedly broke into Vincent's home and assaulted her. Vincent was awarded a total of $176,000 in economic and non-economic damages, but Belt contended that the result might have been different had the arbitrator considered Vincent's psychological evaluation, which could have been used to impeach her testimony.
The Court affirmed the confirmation of the arbitral award, finding no evidence that the psychiatric report was actually excluded, nor that its inclusion would have changed the outcome of the award. California's standard for vacating an award based on failure to hear evidence is whether or not "the rights of the party were substantially prejudiced." CAL. CODE CIV. PROC. §1286.2(a)(5).
Here, the Court did not believe that Vincent's psychologist was in any better position to evaluate Vincent's credibility than the arbitrator. In any event, California courts disfavor using psychiatric evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness. People v. Gurule, 28 Cal.4th 557, 592 (Cal. 2002); People v. Alcala, 4 Cal.4th 742, 781-82 (Cal. 1992).
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|