ADR and Automobile Claims

Founded in 1991, MDRS has perhaps mediated and arbitrated more automobile claims of all types than any other ADR provider in Massachusetts.  Automobile related claims are particularly suited to the processes of alternative dispute resolution, which are designed to meet the parties’ interests in resolving these cases equitably, economically and skillfully, and avoiding the time, expense and uncertainty of trial in the Court system.  Over the past years, the inability of the Court system to appropriately adjudicate the array of automobile claims has become even more pronounced to legal consumers.

MDRS has attempted to maintain our reasonable fee structure for automobile related claims and the present fees for a standard mediation session or arbitration hearing are but $495.00 per party, much less than parties would expend in bringing their case through litigation to a distant trial in the traditional Court system. MDRS also offers what we see as the best available panel of experienced neutrals with extensive substantive experience in mediating and arbitrating automobile claims. Read more.

MED-ARB: Sculpting the ADR Process To The Case

Both mediation and arbitration are now familiar and popular ADR processes used to resolve an ever broadening array of disputes. Over the past years, these two processes have literally transformed the legal landscape such that parties and their counsel are viewing ADR as a more appropriate manner of resolving disputes than is offered by Courts.

Less familiar, and to some observers more controversial, is the hybrid ADR process called MED-ARB, where the parties agree in advance to present their case to a mediator and, should that process not result in a final settlement, the case will be submitted to binding arbitration. In its “pure” state, the same neutral is selected to serve as both mediator and arbitrator.  As an alternative, a separate neutral can be selected to serve as arbitrator should the matter not fully resolve at mediation.  Read more here.

Recent Cases in ADR – April 2013

Keep updated on the most recent cases and latest developments in Alternative Dispute Resolution.  What’s new this April?  Find out here.

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause in Employee Handbook Not Enforceable.  The plaintiff brought suit alleging that her employer, its owner and her former supervisor interfered with her request for maternity leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act and retaliated against her by passing her over for promotion and demoting her to a part-time position. The defendants moved to compel arbitration pursuant to a provision in an employee handbook signed by the plaintiff. The Court denied the defendant’s motion on grounds that the arbitration agreement in the handbook is unenforceable.  Read more.

Arbitration – Dispute over Condominium Stairs Requires Arbitration Under Trust Document.  In a case where the owners of the units in a two-unit condominium have been engaged in a dispute over the stairs leading to the front doors of the units, the Court ruled that the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration should be allowed based on the terms of the condominium trust and the commonwealth’s public policy favoring arbitration of disputes.  Read more.

Arbitration – Counsel Fees Allowed in FINRA Case.  In a case where the parties agreed to abide by any arbitration award rendered, the Court ruled that the arbitrators were acting within the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) guidelines by awarding counsel fees. Read more.

Arbitration – Award in Employment Dispute Upheld.  In 2010, the plaintiff employer was awarded damages due to the defendant employee’s breach of a non-competition clause. In 2012, the defendant was awarded damages pursuant to an unlawful retaliation lawsuit. The defendant then sought to vacate the 2010 arbitration award given the findings in the 2012 lawsuit, the defendant is unable to show that the 2010 award should be vacated under either 9 U.S.C. §10(a) or F.R.C.P. 60(b)(2). Read more.

Arbitration – Arbitration Clause Found Not Enforceable in Home Improvement Case.  An Essex County Superior Court judge awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff homeowners in a dispute with the defendant home improvement contractor.  The Court affirmed this judgment despite the defendant’s assertion that the dispute should be arbitrated in Worcester County. Read more.

Arbitration – Police Officer Reinstatement Does not Contravene Public Policy.  Where a Superior Court judge confirmed an arbitrator’s decision to order the reinstatement of a police officer who had been terminated, the arbitration award did not contravene public policy, so the Superior Court judgment must be upheld. Read more.

Conciliation training guidelines modified 4:29 pm Thu, March 7, 2013.  Trial Court Chief Justice Robert A. Mulligan has approved a change in the qualification training requirements for court-connected conciliators, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Dispute Resolution. Read more.

 

MDRS Welcomes New Neutral, James Purcell

 

James E. Purcell

Jim has a long involvement with ADR both as a practicing attorney and as the CEO of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of RI.  As a trial lawyer, Jim represented clients in mediations and arbitrations.  He was a charter member of the ADR Panel of the US District Court for the District of RI and conducted court assisted mediations and early neutral evaluations, until he left his practice in 2000 to become first the COO and later in 2004, the President & CEO of Blue Cross RI. He remained CEO until he retired effective December 31, 2011.  He practices independently and focuses solely on ADR as facilitator, mediator, and arbitrator.  As an attorney, he focused on the resolution of complex business disputes, particularly in healthcare.  Jim has sat in mediations both as counsel and as client.  He understands both perspectives.  He takes an active role in moving the parties toward resolution.  He believes pre-meeting preparation is very important.  Jim makes it clear how he will conduct the proceeding to minimize surprises to counsel.  At the onset of the mediation or facilitation, he will set the tone with the clients, making them understand this is not about mad dog litigation or “winning,” but rather settling.  Counsel will tone down their arguments in hopes of a civil, courteous and respectful dialogue.  ADR, particularly in the healthcare arena, is the best way to resolve disputes.  Confidentiality is key to the participants; subject matter expertise is a must; and the attorneys get to choose who will conduct the proceeding, unlike in the court system. Read more about Jim in his neutral profile.

MDRS Appointed ADR Provider to the Superior Court

We are pleased to announce that MDRS has been approved to serve both the Superior Court and the Land Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a court-connected provider to their Alternative Dispute Resolution programs. It is an honor to have been chosen for these three-year terms, and we are looking forward to assisting the parties who choose MDRS in working toward resolution of their cases so as to achieve results that are efficient, effective, fair, and economical, while simultaneously aiding our over-taxed court system.

ADR Pioneer Roger Fisher Dies

Roger Fisher, a pioneer in the field of international law and negotiation and the co-founder of the Harvard Negotiation Project, died on August 25, 2012. He was 90 years old. A professor at Harvard Law School for more than four decades, Fisher established negotiation and conflict resolution as a field deserving academic study and devoted his career to challenging students and colleagues alike to explore alternative methods of dispute resolution.

Over his career, Professor Fisher eagerly brought his optimistic can-do brand of problem solving to a broad array of conflicts across the globe, from the hostage crisis in Iran to the civil war in El Salvador. His emphasis was always on addressing the mutual interests of the disputing parties instead of what separated them. As he would tell his students, “Peace is not a piece of paper, but a way of dealing with conflict when it arises.”

Fisher’s work laid the foundation on which much of the field of negotiation and conflict resolution has been based. His best-selling book, “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In” (co-authored with William Ury in 1981), has been translated into 23 languages and has sold more than 3 million copies worldwide. Prior to the publication of “Getting to Yes,” there were almost no regular courses in negotiation taught at academic institutions. Now there are hundreds, if not thousands, of courses devoted to negotiation.

NADN Membership for Brian Jerome

The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals (NADN), an invitation-only association of exceptional Alternative Dispute Resolution professionals, has announced the induction of Brian R. Jerome, Esq. to its esteemed group.

The NADN recognizes mediators and arbitrators who have met stringent practice criteria, and whom stand out among firm- and peer-reviews.

The Academy has made its directory of neutrals like Brian available online, to encourage easier searching for the best ADR providers in any area.  Please visit www.nadn.org or www.mdrs.com for more information, and to view our NEW easy-to-navigate calendar tool for your scheduling ease.

 

Nursing Home Arbitration Agreements

A mandatory arbitration agreement that a man signed on his mother’s behalf when she was admitted to a nursing home did not bar his wrongful death suit against the facility, a Superior Court judge has ruled.

The nursing home argued the plaintiff signed a mandatory arbitration agreement under a health care proxy executed by his mother before she moved into the home. Wasn’t the arbitration agreement therefore enforceable?

According to the article in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the Judge Paul E. Troy disagreed with the defendant on the grounds that the proxy wasn’t activated ‘properly’, and because the man didn’t have the “actual or apparent authority to waive his mother’s constitutional right to a jury trial.”  Specifically, the plaintiff had the right as health care proxy to make ‘any and all’ decisions regarding his mother’s health, on her behalf.

According to Michael R. Rezendes of Quincy, unlike a power of attorney, the plaintiff didn’t have the authority to bind his mother to the arbitration agreement. Does this mean that the arbitration could “fall by the wayside”? Bernard Hamill who represents nursing home plaintiffs considers the circumstances, too: the admissions process for nursing homes shouldn’t include an arbitration clause. Instead, he recommends the agreement could be signed on a separate occasion, after the patient has been admitted.

Portland Public Schools Arbitration

Portland Public Schools were ordered to pay high school teachers a week’s extra pay by arbitrator William Reeves. The decision was made after teachers in the school district were forced to take on additional classes and students, effectively working a combined $750, 000 for nothing.

According to Reeves, the increase in students teachers gain must directly correspond to the number of jobs the district cuts, but Portland Public schools doubled the acceptable ratio.  The arbitration not only resulted in compensation for the additional work teachers took on, but another $750, 000 to compensate the work they will do under the following circumstances:

  • All students must be limited to taking only seven classes in an eight-period schedule unless they are in special education or designated as “academic priority“.
  • No teacher will be allowed to teach more than 180 students per term.

According to reports, more than 40 percent of teachers at certain Portland Public Schools had 180 students or more. The decision is a significant step for the well-being of our countries teachers but it poses an incredible stress on strapped-for-cash school districts. Hopefully education will be a priority in this year’s election cycle.

 

Key Differences in Compromising and Collaborating

Compromising and collaborating can have similar outcomes when applied to the mediation process, each helps disputing parties meet their individual goals. But while the ideas are similar, they’re not interchangeable. One key difference is this: when parties compromise, they have only some of their individual goals and needs met; but when parties collaborate, each party’s expectations and conditions are fully met.

Total satisfaction for both parties is possible using a collaboration model throughout a mediation, by expanding the dispute into more developed issues, often resulting in multiple possible solutions unique to each party.  Whereas a compromise, while extremely useful, aims to split the differences and, essentially, the solutions.

In order for collaboration to be successful, each party should completely disclose his or her goals to the mediator, who will forge a variety of paths toward total resolution.