 |
Arbitrators and Parties Need Not Disclose Their Relationship Unless “Significant” or “Substantial” A party or his attorney must disclose a relationship with the arbitrator only if the relationship is “substantial” or “significant” according to the California Court of Appeal. In Sweidan v. Noble AMA Select IPA Medical Group, Inc. , No. G035538, 2006 WL 1554475 (Cal. Ct. App.-4th June 8, 2006), Noble opposed confirmation of an arbitration award claiming that the arbitrator, Sills, was corrupt because he failed to disclose his professional relationship with Sweidan. Noble chose Sills, a neonatologist and medical director at UCI Medical Center (“UCI”), to arbitrate a billing dispute with Sweidan. Sweidan, a neonatologist, had an ongoing relationship with UCI because Sweidan occasionally referred patients to UCI. The Court noted the rule that arbitrators must disclose significant or substantial business relationships with either a party or his attorney. However, requiring disclosure of every relationship would cause arbitrators to “sever all their ties with the business world,” a result that would run counter to obtaining the best arbitrators to resolve disputes. Applying the California standard for determining whether the nondisclosure warranted vacating the arbitration award, the Court asked whether disclosure of the parties’ relationship would cause a person “to reasonably entertain a doubt that the proposed neutral arbitrator would be able to be impartial.” In holding that the relationship between Sills and Sweidan did not require disclosure, the Court noted that Sweidan’s relationship was with UCI, where he would refer patients needing access to UCI’s state of the art equipment. Additionally, Sills was not one of the doctors providing care to Sweidan’s patients; Sweidan did not practice medicine at UCI; and neither Sills nor UCI received any financial benefit from Sweidan’s referrals.
|