Blog

Another arbitrator and master arbitrator get shamed for not following the lawOctober 4, 2016

Global Liberty Ins. Co. v. Logic Chiropractic, P.C., (Sup. Bronx Co. 2016) Index #: 23560/2016E

I will say this again: Norman Dach’s passing was a bad day for the master arbitration program at AAA.  The master arbitration system was created to correct legal errors that arbitrators make.  Here is another rubber stamp that I must put on the egregious level.

For those following, the AAA case # is 411510086581.  Again, these Article 75 orders do not get sent to the appropriate parties like the master arbitration awards so nobody in the system is aware when AAA gets it wrong.

Here is the text of the order:

Global Liberty Insurance Co.’s petition to vacate the award of the master arbitrator pursuant to CPLR 7511 is granted, as the petitioner established that the decision of the master arbitrator, affirming the lower arbitrator, was arbitrary because it failed to consider the independent medical examination report of chiropractor Dr. Areil Goldin (see In re Petrofsky [Allstate Ins. Co.], 54 N.Y.2d 207 [1981]). As noted by the petitioner, the report should have been considered even though it was signed electronically and not notarized, because strict conformity with CPLR 2106 is not required under the no-fault regulations (Auto One Ins. Co. v. Hillside Chiropractic, P.C., 126 A.D.3d 423 [1st Dept. 2015]; 11NYCRR65-4.5[o][l] ).  Contrary to respondent’s contentions, this Court finds Auto One Ins. Co. v. Hillside Chiropractic, P. C., to be on point and controlling. The master arbitration award dated May 2, 2016 is hereby vacated, the matter is remanded for a new arbitration hearing before a different arbitrator, and the petitioner is entitled to costs and disbursements, including petitioner’s $325 master arbitration fee.

This Constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court

5 Responses

  1. Sun Tzu says:

    So he overturned the award as “irrational” because the arbitrators “strictly” ADHERED to CPLR 2106.

    That’s irrational.

    It looks like the Supreme courts have simply eliminated the “irrationality” standard when the insurer seeks article 75 relief. Providers have never received such treatment as far as I’m aware. if they have, would love to see the case.

    I’m going to use this decision, along with the recent App Division first you won. I’m going to article 75 everything and appeal all adverse decisions Until the law is fixed and applied in unbiased fashion. I will expose the apparent flagrant bias.

  2. Alan Klaus says:

    Absolutely ridiculous decision! The MA FOLLOWED THE LAW AND IS BEING OVERTURNED BC Y? THE ARBITRATOR CENTER FOLLOW THE LAW BC IT IS NOT REQUIRED. OUR SYSTEM ISSO BROKEN ITS BEYOND D REPAIR!

  3. Alan Klaus says:

    Stupid text to speech but u get my drift

  4. Alan Klaus says:

    JT R U Crazy! U Have Lost It If U THink THIS Is A GOOD DECISION! The MA FOLLOWED THE LAW. HOW IS THAT IRRATIONAL. OUR SYSTEM IS SO SCREWED UP! I Think U Need A Vaca.

Leave a Reply