|
A California Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling that rejected a laundry list of objections to an arbitration award, and offered a strong rebuke to the questionable ethics of the attorney who brought numerous "unfounded" accusations against the arbitrator.
In Vermont & 43rd Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Molina Medical Centers, Inc., No. B185517, 2007 WL 1429492 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2007), Vermont & 43rd Medical Clinic, Inc. (Vermont), a medical provider, brought both tort and breach of contract claims against Molina Medical Centers, Inc. (Molina), a health care service plan provider.
After taking nearly two years to agree on a new arbitrator (Vermont having demanded the resignation of the first one), the retired judge serving as arbitrator issued 25 pages of detailed and cogent analysis rejecting Vermont's tort claims, while awarding a small sum to Vermont for its breach of contract claims.
Vermont's attorney attempted to have the award vacated, making various unfounded charges of bias, misconduct, and comments impugning the arbitrator's health and ability. From alleged "failing memory" due to age and illness, to claims of "bias" over an expression of annoyance at Vermont's attorney, the Court rejected each charge in turn.
The Court saved its sharpest language for what it termed the Vermont attorney's "most egregious argument": that due to his cancer treatment, the arbitrator "probably is vulnerable to manipulation," and that it was "not beyond the realm of possibilities that [Molina] had been able to reach" the arbitrator.
Rejecting as "unsupported" this charge of bribery and corruption, the Court stated Vermont's attorney "is abusing the protective environment of litigation to engage in character assassination . . . . This behavior cannot be condoned, and we look askance at the ethics of any lawyer who makes unfounded claims of bribery just to win an advantage for his client."
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|