Acuhealth Acupuncture, P.C. v New York City Tr. Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 50297(U)(Sup Ct. Kings Co. 2016).
This case just goes to show how tough it is to vacate a Master Arbitrator’s award. The Second Department has on numerous occasions “washed its hands” of reviewing a arbitration awards.
This case involved the question of Policy Exhaustion. Despite several late denials and meeting the applicable standards of “priority of lien regulation”, the lower arbitrator refused to award plaintiff’s unpaid overdue bills stating; “applicant may not recover any of the outstanding fees since any such award would exceed my authority.” The Master Arbitrator affirmed. Upon Article 75 by the Petitioner/Medical provider, the Court stated as follows:
This Court appreciates the petitioner’s valid argument, however, the standard of review of an arbitration award is limited. Acuhealth failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of any of the statutory grounds for vacating the master arbitrator’s award (see generally Matter of Collazo v. Suffolk County, — AD3d –, 2016 NY Slip Op 01321 [2 Dept., 2016]). Here, petitioner’s claim that the arbitrator erred in failing to apply the priority of payment falls squarely within the category of claims of legal error, which courts generally cannot review. Further, a reasonable hypothesis can be found to support the master arbitrator’s interpretation that the arbitrator does not have the authority to direct payment in excess of the no fault policy. Petitioner’s reliance on Nyack is insufficient to warrant a determination that the master arbitrator’s award was arbitrary, capricious or incorrect as a matter of law. The Court in Nyack concluded that while awaiting information to verify a pending claim, the priority of payment regulation does not preclude the insurer from paying other verified claims. The Nyack action was a court proceeding, de novo — it did not involve an arbitration. The standard herein is quite different. Petitioner has not presented any appellate authority permitting the arbitrator to exceed a specific enumerated limitation on the arbitrators power by rendering an award in excess of the policy limits. The master arbitrator in confirming the lower arbitration award had evidentiary support and a rational basis, and was not arbitrary, capricious, irrational or without a plausible basis (see Mercury Cas. Co. v. Healthmakers Medical Group, P.C., 67 AD3d 1017, 888 N.Y.S.2d 762 [2 Dept., 2009]; see also Matter of Petrofsky, 54 NY2d 207, supra).
Seems as though standard of review is close to impossible…