Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00131-FPS. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000050291].. [16-1647]
Appeal: 16-1647
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1647
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
QHR INTENSIVE RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00131-FPS)
Submitted:
March 3, 2017
Decided:
March 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela A. Bresnahan, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Peter A. Lusenhop, Mitchell A. Tobias, VORYS,
SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Anthony Cillo,
COHEN & GRIGSBY, PC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Athanasios Basdekis, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West
Virginia; Ellis Reed-Hill Lesemann, LESEMANN & ASSOCIATES LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-1647
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Weirton
court’s
Medical
order
Center,
denying
its
Inc.,
motion
appeals
to
from
vacate
the
a
district
$1,486,903.11
arbitration award entered in favor of QHR Intensive Resources,
LLC (“QIR”), confirming the award, and dismissing the complaint.
We affirm.
“This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of
a motion to vacate an arbitration award.”
Brown & Pipkins, LLC
v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 846 F.3d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 2017)
(brackets
and
internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
Generally,
“judicial review of an arbitration award in federal court is
severely circumscribed and among the narrowest known at law.”
Jones v. Dancel, 792 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 591 (2015).
As such, “a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a
party to the arbitration demonstrates that the award should be
vacated under one of . . . four enumerated grounds” in 9 U.S.C.
§ 10
(2012).
Id.
(internal
quotation
marks
omitted).
As
pertinent here, an arbitration award may be vacated if it “was
procured
by
§ 10(a)(1).
by
undue
demonstrate
corruption,
fraud,
or
undue
means.”
9
U.S.C.
To establish that an arbitration award was procured
means,
“that
the
the
party
seeking
fraud
or
vacatur
corruption
typically
was
(1)
must
not
discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the
2
Appeal: 16-1647
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/28/2017
arbitration,
(2)
materially
arbitration,
and
(3)
evidence.”
Pg: 3 of 4
related
established
to
by
an
issue
clear
and
in
the
convincing
MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610
F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
QIR, a consulting firm, contracted with Weirton to provide
various
hospital
Weirton’s
management
financial
terminated
the
proceedings.
services
health.
agreement
aimed
Within
and
QIR
at
two
improving
years,
commenced
Weirton
arbitration
Among those to testify at the arbitration hearing
were four interim officers whom QIR had selected for Weirton as
part of QIR’s obligations under the agreement.
As a result of
QIR’s posthearing motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Weirton
discovered that these witnesses had entered into compensation
agreements
with
QIR.
Weirton
claims
that
these
witnesses
actively concealed the existence of these agreements, and that
such misconduct impacted the outcome of the arbitration.
We
agree
with
the
district
court
that
none
of
the
witnesses’ testimony relied on by Weirton constituted clear and
convincing evidence of undue means.
opportunity
hearing
and
compensation
to
question
failed
to
these
witnesses
inquire
arrangements
Moreover, Weirton had the
made
3
as
to
with
at
the
arbitration
the
existence
QIR.
Weirton
of
any
cannot
Appeal: 16-1647
Doc: 29
Filed: 03/28/2017
Pg: 4 of 4
complain that these witnesses tried to conceal something that it
never sought to discover.
Finally, Weirton has not demonstrated a causal connection
between
the
arbitration.
witnesses’
testimony
and
the
result
of
MCI Constructors, 610 F.3d at 858-59 & n.6.
the
While
Weirton speculates that the arbitrator would have construed a
contested contractual provision differently had he been aware of
the
witnesses’
allegedly
false
or
misleading
testimony,
the
arbitrator’s report makes clear that he found this to be an
unambiguous provision that did not require additional evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?