Blog

Exhaustion: To be decided another dayDecember 26, 2018

Matter of Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 08641 (2d Dept. 2018)

” Consistent with the public policy in favor of arbitration, the grounds specified in CPLR 7511 for vacating or modifying a no-fault arbitration award are few in number and narrowly applied'” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Westchester Med. Group, M.D., 125 AD3d 649, 650, quoting Matter of Mercury Cas. Co. v Healthmakers Med. Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 1017; see Matter of Singh v Allstate Ins. Co., 137 AD3d 1046, 1047; Matter of Chin v State Farm Ins. Co., 73 AD3d 918, 919). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any ground for vacating the master arbitration award. The determination of the master arbitrator confirming the original arbitration award had evidentiary support and a rational basis (see 11 NYCRR 65-4.10[a][2]; Matter of Brijmohan v State [*2]Farm Ins. Co., 92 NY2d 821, 823; Countrywide Ins. Co. v Sawh,272 AD2d 245, 245). ” It is not for [the court] to decide whether the [master] arbitrator erred [in applying the applicable law]'” (Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Westchester Med. Group, M.D., 125 AD3d at 650, quoting Matter of Falzone [New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.], 15 NY3d 530, 535). “

Priority of payment analysis will await.

2 Responses

  1. the Visible Man says:

    Of course priority of payment has to wait. The issue here was just about the limits of an arbitrator’s authority, which is not at all the same as that of a judge.

    Everyone should pay attention to the cases cited for the evidentiary support/rational basis part of the decision. There’s a reason that section and those decisions are cited rather than the usual Falzone and Petrofsky citations.

    • jtlawadmin says:

      After Healthmakers? They just cited cases that supported the proposition. At oral argument and in this opinion, the Court held that an arbitrator can be wrong on the law and it does not matter. Great example is Matter of Selby v. Geico. Anyway, I think the Alleviation Court will spank the carriers. This will cause the regulation to be amended. Luckily for the providers, we learned last week that regulatory amendments (should Alleviation become settled law) are never retroactive…

Leave a Reply