 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hamilton v. Cooperative of American Physicians Inc./Mutual Protection Trust6/9/2005
r after the discovery issue was submitted to arbitration. Just as in Alexander, here the arbitrators did not act in excess of their power when they determined an issue submitted to them even if they failed to apply a mandatory law.
Hamilton tries to distinguish Alexander on the ground that if section 1286.1 is applicable "no issue regarding whether or not to allow discovery is ever before the neutral arbitrator . . . ." (Boldface omitted.) This claim is particularly unconvincing since Hamilton was the one who presented the issue to the arbitrator. But even if Hamilton's submission of the issue to the arbitrator were not viewed as a concession that the arbitrator was empowered to decide it, case law requires the same result. An arbitrator generally is empowered to make procedural rulings including issues with respect to discovery. (Elden v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1508; Titan Value Equities Group, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 482, 488-489.) Hamilton has not shown that the arbitrators acted in excess of their powers in finding section 1286.1 to be inapplicable.
B. Hamilton Has Not Shown Substantial Prejudice from the Arbitrator's Discovery Decision
Hamilton's alternative argument is that, as a result of the denial of all discovery, he suffered substantial prejudice and the arbitration award therefore must be vacated under section 1286.2, subdivision (a)(5). That statute provides that an arbitration award should be vacated where " he rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title." (ยง 1286.2, subd. (a)(5).) Hamilton further argues that " t is the nature of prejudice that Dr. Hamilton cannot articulate the very information he was denied. It is manifestly unfair for CAP/MPT to first refuse to produce documents, then claim Dr. Hamilton was not `prejudiced' by its refusal simply because he remains uninformed about them." (Boldface and italics omitted.)
If the record supported Hamilton's claim that he was denied all discovery, his argument would have some force. (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 105-106; see also Mercuro v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 167, 184.) In considering the arbitration of a dispute under the Fair Employment and Housing Act [FEHA], our Supreme Court found that "it is undisputed that some discovery is often necessary for vindicating a FEHA claim. Accordingly, whether or not the employees in this case are entitled to the full range of discovery provided in Code of Civil Procedure section 1283.05, they are at least entitled to discovery sufficient to adequately arbitrate their statutory claim, including access to essential documents and witnesses, as determined by the arbitrator(s) and subject to limited judicial review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2." (Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, Inc., supra, at p. 106.) We need not consider whether the principles applicable to a FEHA claim are equally applicable here because the record does not support Hamilton's claim that he was denied all discovery.
Hamilton faces another obstacle in demonstrating substantial prejudice. The arbitration award expressly finds the legal cause of the default judgment is Hamilton's failure to pay his arrears to CAP/MPT. Hamilton does not explain how any evidence he might have discovered could theoretically alter the finding that Hamilton's failure to make payments was the legal cause of t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|