Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00131-FPS. Copies to all parties and the district court. .. [16-1647]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
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)
March 3, 2017
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
arbitration award entered in favor of QHR Intensive Resources,
LLC (“QIR”), confirming the award, and dismissing the complaint.
“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)
“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.
pertinent here, an arbitration award may be vacated if it “was
To establish that an arbitration award was procured
discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the
Pg: 3 of 4
MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610
F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation
QIR, a consulting firm, contracted with Weirton to provide
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
actively concealed the existence of these agreements, and that
such misconduct impacted the outcome of the arbitration.
witnesses’ testimony relied on by Weirton constituted clear and
convincing evidence of undue means.
Moreover, Weirton had the
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
MCI Constructors, 610 F.3d at 858-59 & n.6.
Weirton speculates that the arbitrator would have construed a
contested contractual provision differently had he been aware of
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.
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?