AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
The American Health Law Association (AHLA) is the largest nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization devoted to legal issues in the health care field. AHLA's Speaking of Health Law podcasts offer thoughtful analysis and insightful commentary on the legal and policy issues affecting the American health care system.
AHLA's Speaking of Health Law
Issues Related to Health Care Employment Arbitration
Linda A. Michler, Arbitrator and Mediator, speaks with Christopher C. Murray, Partner, Ogletree Deakins, about arbitration in the health care employment space. They discuss how arbitration works; the strengths and weaknesses of arbitration; and issues related to selecting an arbitrator, cost, mediation, class action waivers, and mass arbitration. They also discuss special considerations related to health care employment arbitration, how employers and their counsel can make employment arbitration successful, and AHLA’s Dispute Resolution Service and Rules of Procedure for Employment Arbitration.
AHLA's Health Law Daily Podcast Is Here!
AHLA's popular Health Law Daily email newsletter is now a daily podcast, exclusively for AHLA Premium members. Get all your health law news from the major media outlets on this new podcast! To subscribe and add this private podcast feed to your podcast app, go to americanhealthlaw.org/dailypodcast.
Thank you.
SPEAKER_02:Welcome, and we hope you enjoy today's AHLA podcast on the intersection of physician employment and practice group contracts in alternative dispute resolutions. specifically AHLA's Dispute Resolution Services. With us today is Christopher C. Murray Esquire, a partner with Ogletree Deacons in its Indianapolis office, and Linda A. Mickler Esquire, arbitrator and mediator, a member of the arbitration and mediation panels for the Dispute Resolution Services and chair of the Dispute Resolution Services Dispute Review Board. At the beginning, I will say there are many practice areas for an attorney in healthcare. Generally, we could say there are healthcare transactions, healthcare litigation, and regulatory healthcare compliance. Disputes impede the close cooperation needed to deliver quality healthcare arbitration and It can be used as a resolution tool and is particularly well suited for disputes involving healthcare because of the complex nature of the healthcare marketplace and its highly regulated nature. What can your healthcare entity do to ensure that a dispute is resolved and it's private rather than having a public litigation record? This is what we're going to be discussing today, Chris and I, and I want to start off by saying AHLA maintains a national roster of arbitrators, mediators, and hearing officers with health law expertise. Chris, your firm has had a lot of experience with employment litigation and arbitration. What have you learned about the strengths and weaknesses of both?
SPEAKER_01:Well, good afternoon, Linda, and thank you for the opportunity to join you today to discuss employment litigation or arbitration, actually, as an alternative to litigation. I think it might be helpful for those listening to review kind of quickly what arbitration is for those who aren't familiar with it. So arbitration, and in particular, employment arbitration, is a way for parties, employers, and employees to attempt to resolve their legal disputes without having to go to court. The way that works typically is that the employers have an arbitration policy or arbitration agreement with their employees that provides that both sides will waive their right to go to court and waive their right to a jury trial and instead will attempt to resolve any disputes between them through arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution processes. So the way arbitration works then is that when a dispute arises between an employer and an employee, they select a neutral third party, that would be the arbitrator, to resolve the dispute. And then the arbitrator functions very much like a judge. The parties would have the right to conduct discovery or present evidence and witnesses like at a trial, but the whole thing is more informal. Often, as you mentioned, more private. For example, the hearing, an arbitration hearing, would typically take place in a private conference room rather than a public courtroom. But the arbitrator still has the power to award all of the same remedies that a court would have, including monetary damages or injunctive relief. So the outcome of the arbitration would be similar to what could be obtained through trial. So the arbitration agreements that employers use typically set up a procedure for the parties to follow including a procedure for selecting an arbitrator. And then often they might identify an administrator, an arbitration administrator, such as the American Health Law Association's Dispute Resolution Service. But that administrator then would assist the parties in conducting the arbitration. So that's kind of a quick overview of what arbitration is. And you had... You had asked about kind of the strengths and weaknesses or pros and cons of arbitration. And I would say from the employer's perspective, there are a number of benefits that parties often see employers in particular from arbitration. Arbitration tends to be quicker than litigation. I think I've seen some studies that show that arbitration and employment arbitration tends to lasts about half as long as a typical case in federal court. Sometimes the costs can be lower, but I think we're going to talk a little bit more about that later. There's an important caveat to that. Arbitration isn't always cheaper than litigation. But some of the other advantages that employers see to arbitration are no risk of runaway jury awards, like you can sometimes see in court cases. The whole process is a little more informal than in court. So that allows the parties maybe to, for example, to have more flexible deadlines or have greater say in when their hearings will be scheduled than they would have in court. There tends to be a little more confidentiality than court because it's not in the public court system. And of course, the arbitrators tend to have employment law expertise, which can be a big benefit to the parties. That said, there are some things that employers should be aware of that are downsides or potential negatives to arbitration. I know we're gonna talk, as I mentioned, we're gonna talk a little bit more about the costs, I think. That can be a pro and a con. There are, for example, other fees that employers are responsible for in arbitration that they don't have in court cases. Employers are responsible for paying the arbitrator's fees. for paying the arbitration administration fees as well. So that can drive up the cost. Some employers find that they are less likely to get summary judgment in arbitration than they might in court. So there may be more hearings in arbitration than there are jury trials in court. And then there are often limited appellate rights. I know we'll talk a bit about more about that later too. So those are some of the risks. And the last thing I wanted to mention, and this tends to be one of the things that attracts employers most, is that in arbitration, you can have a class action waiver because arbitration is intended to be conducted on an individual basis. So those are some of the pros and cons that I've seen, Linda.
SPEAKER_02:Thank you. One of the questions that I will get is, do parties really need to use an administrator to agree on an arbitrator? Could they also select an arbitrator by themselves? I'm going to give my opinion on that. And then Chris, I'm going to ask you about yours too. I think that it's important to remember that both the employer and the employee want an enforceable award should the proceeding get to an award. Remember too, that arbitrations also settle. And that in an arbitration, your arbitrator is not going to be able to speak with the parties individually. We've already brought up that without the publicity that litigation can have, that's an advantage of mediation and arbitration. And in answer to the question about an administrator, sometimes the parties will agree if they do it early on. to select a mediator and do a mediation and wait to go into arbitration and see what happens. Other times that you can do a mediation at any time during an arbitration and it's important to note that. Chris, do you have any comments?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that Linda. We often see in arbitration agreements that there will be an option for the parties to agree to an arbitrator by themselves without using an administrator. Typically, for example, an agreement might say that after somebody gives notice that they're going to pursue an arbitration, the parties will have maybe 30 days or 45 days to see if they can agree on an arbitrator between themselves. And then if they're unable to do that, then at that point, they would turn to an administrator for assistance like AHLA and then use the administrator selection process. So I definitely see that as a common option. And one big benefit to that for employers, if that happens to work out, is that it can reduce the cost somewhat of arbitration if they follow that option. Would you see any downsides? I'm just curious from your perspective as an arbitrator, whether you would see any potential downsides to the parties to selecting an arbitrator directly between themselves?
SPEAKER_02:An arbitrator has to maintain and make sure that an award is enforceable. So I don't... Yes, there are... roles out there where a party can do that. But I would encourage an administrator for an arbitration. A mediation, I think, is a different matter, and it depends. It's very fact-specific. You want somebody who is going to be, well, we're going to get into a little bit about the discussion about mediators and the qualities that you want to look for. However, usually by the time the parties in employment or healthcare-related litigation get to where they're talking arbitration, they pretty much, by and large, cemented their positions. So you talked about the lower cost, but with a caveat. Let's talk about that a little bit. We've mentioned the cost is Arbitration is less expensive for employers than litigation. Mediation also would be. But let's talk a little bit about what you look at and trying to decide which way to go. You've already mentioned the no runaway jury verdicts. The more flexible deadlines would be another one. Any other thoughts?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, so I think... I think it's important for employers to know what they're getting into when they adopt arbitration. And I think sometimes there's a misconception that an individual arbitration case will be cheaper than litigation for an employer. And that is not necessarily the case. So if an employer is just looking at costs on a case-by-case basis, they may not see that those costs are cheaper in arbitration. However, what we also see and what we hear, and some of this is anecdotal from companies that adopt arbitration programs, is that their costs in the aggregate go down. And I think what I mean by that is the overall amount that they spend dealing with employment disputes, which would include not only their own attorney's fees, but also, you know, amounts they pay out to resolve these matters or settlement or so forth, or in, you know, kind of worst case scenario, the amounts that they pay as damages, if they have adverse decisions against them, that when you look at those costs in the aggregate, employers with arbitration programs do see their costs go down. And I think, you know, I think there's, there are some explanations of, different explanations for why that is. One is that settlement amounts tend to be a bit lower in arbitration than in litigation. And that goes back to what you mentioned a moment ago, Linda, was about the risk of runaway jury verdicts in court cases. Well, because there isn't that risk in arbitration, that's one theory for why the settlement amounts tend to be, on average, a little bit lower in arbitration. And then there's also the benefit that cases are resolved at an earlier stage when you have an arbitration program, especially if it includes mediation, as you've mentioned mediation being related to arbitration. So because the cases can be resolved more quickly in arbitration or with arbitration programs, that can be another reason for the overall costs being lower. So I would just, as a general point, I would just caution employers thinking about adopting arbitration programs to understand that it's not going to be on a case-by-case basis that it may be cost savings. It's going to be more important to look at the costs in the aggregate.
SPEAKER_02:One advantage of an arbitration or a mediation is the confidentiality. of the proceedings and a settlement that includes, if it is done in an arbitration or in mediation, that includes the wording that both parties agree upon to maintain the confidentiality. And from a mediator's viewpoint, a mediator is gonna insist in the mediation agreement that it include, that the parties understand that everybody is gonna be bound the mediator themselves also have a duty to keep things confidential. The other item you can expect in a mediation is that a mediator is always going to want to see examples from both parties of what they want in a mediation for a settlement, because it's not just monetary. It can be other things as well. Yes, usually monetary, but especially in an employment setting or in a healthcare setting, there are other factors that can come into play that may make the party say, okay, we'll settle on that basis. Chris, do you have anything you want to add to that?
SPEAKER_01:Well, yeah, I think mediation can be a huge benefit to any sort of arbitration or ADR program for all the reasons that you mentioned. And So I guess I would just mention for employers who are thinking about adopting an arbitration program, they should be aware that they can include mediation as a component to that. Now, there are some, they'll want to consult with their counsel because there are some questions about whether mediation prerequisites. If you have an arbitration agreement, for example, that says the parties have to go to mediation before they can actually go to arbitration, that's something employers should consult with their counsel about whether that type of requirement would be enforceable in their jurisdiction. But I would say that But the employers that I work with that have mediation built into their arbitration programs, they tend to be very happy with that because it allows the parties or maybe compels the parties to just start having those discussions earlier in the process about resolving the matter. And oftentimes they're successful and as a result can avoid a lot of headache and cost down the road.
SPEAKER_02:some of the things that i would recommend for employers and employees to maximize the benefits of both the mediation and the arbitration talk with the opposing counsel early and with mediators also early and go to mediation early i think we all know that cost of a proceeding can be a prohibition to actually settling if we go too far out in the process. And the idea is to finish the dispute, whatever it might be, by everybody involved earlier rather than later to avoid the possibility that you may not be settling because of the costs that have been expended. some qualities in mediation for the mediator, the ability to discuss equally with both sides, trust by the parties of the mediator, empathy and objectivity, but also the ability to see the matter as the parties see it subjectively, as they will see it subjectively. They will be up against the walls And that's also true in arbitration. They'll have their positions and they're gonna stick with them. The mediator also has to have the ability to look at both sides and the case law and try to figure out what the sticking point is in each side's case. And frankly, use it to the advantage for a settlement. Talk to the parties about that. And as I said before, mediators also have the ability to work with something other than just monetary elements. Chris, how common is mandatory employment arbitration? Are you seeing any trends in terms of employers adopting or discontinuing employment arbitration programs?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I'd say it's very common and increasingly common. So our firm... Last year, Ogletree Deacons, we did conduct a survey of our clients. And as part of that survey, we asked a number of questions about the use of arbitration. And that survey resulted in some interesting data, I thought. Overall, I think it was maybe about 1,300 employers that participated in the survey. And one of the things we saw is that if you look at all employers generally, and this would be employers from small employers with fewer than 1,000 employees to very large employers with over 20,000 employees, on average, about almost 44% of our respondents are currently using arbitration. And then on top of that, there's significant additional percentage i think it was about 13 on top of that responded that they are don't currently use arbitration but are considering implementing it um and that's when you look at all employers together when you look specifically at larger employers we found that even more of them are using arbitration so for employers that have 20 000 or more employees 50, almost 56% of our respondents currently have arbitration programs and another 9% are looking at it. So I'd say it's very common, especially as I mentioned among larger employers. And I think it's continuing to grow. I'd be curious to hear what you're seeing and from the perspective of an arbitrator, whether you have a sense of, you know, more employers adopting arbitration or whether that's kind of visible to you from your position as an arbitrator? I
SPEAKER_02:think arbitration generally is increasing and so is mediation. And it's for all the reasons that both of us have discussed. You've mentioned the class action waiver. Employment arbitration is intended to be a one-on-one. So do you have anything you want to add as far as the class action waiver? Or perhaps we should discuss a little bit about how that is handled from an employer viewpoint?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. Yeah. So I do think that's probably one of the things that has really been driving the increased use of arbitration by employers. So back in 2018, the Supreme Court definitively decided that that employers can use class action waivers in their arbitration agreements. It had been an open question up to that point. And so since 2018, I think that's even increased the rate at which employers are adopting arbitration. The class action waiver, it's a very appealing aspect of arbitration for employers. Like I said, the whole theory of arbitration is that it should be hopefully quicker and less formal and possibly less expensive. And individual arbitration is a key part of that. And that's one of the things the Supreme Court has noted about arbitration. When it's on a one-on-one basis, it allows the parties to focus on the merits of the case and, if necessary, get to a hearing on those merits more quickly than on a class basis. Linda, as you probably have seen, there is, however, a phenomenon now called mass arbitration that has kind of developed in recent years. And I'm wondering if you've seen evidence know any increase in activity with mass arbitrations from from your perspective as an arbitrator
SPEAKER_02:yes there is um and let me first differentiate between class actions and mass arbitrations mass arbitrations are within the contract there is wording that says they're going to go to arbitration and they're all put into arbitration pretty much I don't want to say together, but pretty much at the same time. In that type of situation, you have a process arbitrator that will determine how the matters are going to be handled. You have the arbitration, and then you have a situation where it's sort of like the back end, the arbitration, and then the front end, what other issues have to be addressed. I do think that it's appropriate in certain situations Do you, have you seen where most employers will use arbitration with only certain types of employees or with all of them?
SPEAKER_01:Well, in my experience, there hasn't, you know, I have not seen employers limiting arbitration to just certain types of employees. And I'm not aware of really any benefit to doing that. I will add one caveat there, and that is there is a category of employees that kind of generally referred to as interstate transportation workers. And those would be like truck drivers who are delivering product interstate or maybe warehouse loaders who are loading and unloading such product. Those employees, which are probably not really... I would assume probably not... probably not a concern for a lot of healthcare employers, but those types of employees may need to be treated differently just because the law that covers arbitration, the federal arbitration act carves out those employees. They're not subject to the federal arbitration act. So sometimes they needed to be, they need to be treated differently based on whatever state law is applicable to them. But outside of that issue you know, the employers I work with tend to just use arbitration broadly for all employees.
SPEAKER_02:Interesting.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And have you, I'm curious, have you seen, you know, especially with maybe the healthcare industry, have you seen employers, you know, handle arbitration differently? No, there are
SPEAKER_02:a variety of things that can go into a healthcare arbitration case. And you can even see the same thing in the same case as concerns the physicians in the hospital. Some examples, healthcare organizations sell, buy, merge with other entities and other practices. They collaborate between healthcare providers to ensure legal and financial interest, leasing property for facilities, service agreements, not just a standard employment contract. An employment contract, going back quite a few years, was a rather simple document. That's not the case today. It will talk about a physician having duties in a certain situation and then having others as well, depending upon the agreements that the hospital has with the physician practice. Vendor agreements, service agreements, employment agreements, they're all meant to protect a client's interest. Physicians leaving for another hospital can also cause issues and arbitrations, and you will see that. Other possible issues that will creep up, compliance audits, investigations, enforcement actions, and those are obviously involving regulatory and compliance audits and appeals, Medicare, Medicaid. You've mentioned one of the acts, the Administrative Procedure Act, government reimbursement questions, payer-provider disputes. All sounds a little bit daunting to someone who might be new at it, but somebody who's seasoned will see those type of things regularly. So getting cases into arbitration is the starting point. The benefit comes only if the process is managed properly. What do in-house and firm counsel need to do to make employment arbitration successful? Chris, you want to tackle that?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, sure. So I think, I think first and foremost, uh, the, the, for the employer, uh, or I guess the most important consideration at the outset is they want to make sure that they've got an arbitration agreement that's enforceable. If it's not enforceable, they're going to find themselves involved in all sorts of satellite litigation, litigating in the court, whether it's an enforceable agreement or litigating that issue before the arbitrator. And that can all become an expensive distraction. So to get the benefits, you know, the benefits, especially of arbitration, quicker resolution and cheaper resolution to get those benefits from arbitration. An employer is going to want to make sure that their agreement is enforceable. And to do that, they should probably have it reviewed relatively regularly every year or so, because this is an area where there are a lot of changes in the law. There's changes, whether it's in the case law, or in federal or in regulatory law, states are regularly trying to litigate arbitration issues. So it's good to have agreements reviewed somewhat regularly to ensure they're up to date. On the issue of enforceability, employers are also wanting to give some attention to just how the agreement is presented to their applicants and employees. That's another big question for enforceability. So especially if they're adopting a new program, they'll want to think about how it's going to be distributed to new employees and to current employees. Will it be, for example, will it be distributed as part of a job application or will it be distributed as part of an offer, a job offer, or as part of orientation materials or, you know, as part of the materials policies, for example, uh, that are signed during onboarding. Um, another question would be like, how do you deal with current employees? If you're, if you're adopting a new program and how will it be distributed to those people? Um, and how to do that effectively and in an enforceable way. Um, another thing that I think employers will want to think about is just how is record keeping, uh, how will these arbitration agreements, once they are executed, be retained for future reference? Because it's not uncommon to have employees who are with a company or with an employer for many, many years after they've onboarded. And The employer is going to need to be able to, you know, if a dispute arises five or 10 years down the road, the employer is going to need to be able to access that agreement. And I'll mention there just, you know, one kind of example of one horror story that we had at one point. One of our clients had used a third party to retain its employment contract. It's documentation and then switch providers at some point and provided copies of everything they had to the employer when it was switching providers. And it turned out that many of the arbitration agreements, which were two-sided documents, had only been scanned once. on single-sided scans. So they had all of these arbitration agreements that they were missing basically half of because they were only half scans. So it's little things, little details like that, that the employers want to pay attention to, to ensure that they have an enforceable agreement. So Lynn, I'm curious from your perspective as an arbitrator, what are some of the things you'd recommend employers do so that they can get the most out of arbitration and make it as effective as possible.
SPEAKER_02:And I'm going to expand on what you just said, because it certainly is a whoops story, as well as a horror story. It's not just the agreements. It is the papers that you need. Keep track of the information that you need to prove your case. Obviously, with litigation, you put a litigation hold on. With arbitration, do the same thing. Let everybody know. The same could be true with mediation, depending upon what it is that you are mediating. Remember, an arbitrator cannot speak individually with the party. Employers and employee counsel can. Keep track of the information your client has. Try to avoid extensive discovery disputes. The procedure of arbitration or mediation is not meant to be, let's just do as much discovery as we can. Yes, discovery will be limited. It will be limited with several different parameters. And it is something that the arbitrator will address with the parties during the scheduling conference or when a dispute arises.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, Linda, one of the things that I had mentioned is during the pros and cons of arbitration was that typically, appellate rights are more limited in arbitration. I'll expand on that just briefly for those who are new to arbitration. And that is, unlike in a court case, if one party loses, they have a right to appeal to the court of appeals. In arbitration, the arbitrator is usually given the authority to issue a final binding award. And then there really is no way to appeal often from an arbitration award. However, that's not always the case, and the parties and employers can change that when they're preparing their arbitration programs. And I'm just curious if you could maybe describe a little bit about what the appeal process is that's available under the AHLA's rules and procedures, because I think that's kind of a unique process.
SPEAKER_02:AHLAA does have an appeal process which will hopefully correct any issues and prevent going into the courts and do so faster than the courts, at least in theory. As Chris mentioned, under the Federal Arbitration Act and the state arbitration statutes, courts can vacate an award only upon evidence of misconduct or bias or if the arbitrator exceeded the powers granted by the parties. An award containing factual or legal errors will be confirmed. Such awards are rare, but no dispute resolution system is perfect. AHLA's Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Appeals provides for a panel of three healthcare arbitrators, which may review an award under the same standards applied by an intermediate court of appeals to a trial court verdict. The award may not be remanded to the original arbitrator an appellant panel offers subject matter expertise and speed the panel must issue an award within 30 days after an oral argument or after briefs are submitted if there is no argument this is quick and it's meant to be like other arbitration awards and appellate panels decisions sets no precedent good or bad and that's important to note Speaking of employment arbitration and the procedure, since we've talked a little bit about the appeals procedure, I just want to point out that with the employment arbitration and other types of arbitration that AHLA handles, they are reviewed and the AHLA rules of procedure for employment arbitration, the most recent version is effective February 6th, 2025. It's possible, although I actually have not handled one in the healthcare industry, it's possible to streamline the process and do a desk arbitration where it's appropriate if the parties agree. Another point is that if an employee voluntarily files a claim under a mandatory arbitration clause, the employer is responsible for paying the basic filing fee for a list of five candidates. Let me go back for a minute and talk about the desk arbitration. One instance where that can be used, and it depends often on how the state is handling the No Surprises Act. There are some states that have procedures set up and desk arbitrations, for instance, will be used. In more complex situations involving the hospital, the physicians, the billing, I have not seen that. And I think it's for the same reason, Chris, that you have broken down what you see with employment arbitrations. From your perspective as an employment attorney, what do you think? Do you continue to see growth in the use of arbitration?
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, I think we will continue to see that. You know, there's often criticism of arbitration. For example, back in also the 2018 time period, there was some negative publicity for arbitration around the Me Too movement, for example. And that was because there were several leading figures in that movement, Gretchen Carlson in particular, whose story was a big part of that movement. She happened to have an arbitration agreement with her employer. And so there was some negative attention to arbitration at that time. So one thing I do want to mention, and just to be clear, is I have never seen any connection between the use of arbitration and that encouraging or allowing or condoning any sort of improper conduct in the workplace. I've certainly never seen that. And I don't think I've certainly never seen any studies suggesting that. So there was some negative publicity around that time. But despite some of the criticisms, all of the reasons we've talked about for adopting arbitration, I think, continue to be attractive to a lot of employers. And I think the rate at which employers are moving towards arbitration, at least from what I have seen, has only... continue to increase, actually. So I think arbitration, I think it will continue to grow. As I mentioned, based on those survey results, there are a lot of employers using it. Now, Linda, you had mentioned mass arbitrations, and we talked about that a little bit earlier, and you described it. So I would say that that is kind of a current developing... a new development in arbitration that has and cause employers to kind of think, well, do I want to go down this route if I might end up being exposed to a mass arbitration? And just to kind of underscore what the risks are from an employer's perspective, these mass arbitrations are when a plaintiff's attorney, an employee side attorney, basically recruits a number of claimants to file claims all basically all at the same time and often identical complaints. It could be just a handful of claims that are filed, but in the worst case scenario, it could be hundreds, for example, in like a wage an hour type of situation where somebody is challenging a wage an hour policy. The challenge that presents for employers is that as we've talked about, employers are responsible for the arbitration costs, the arbitrator's fees and the administration fees. And so when a mass arbitration is filed, the employer is suddenly on the hook for arbitration at filing fees and related fees that can be very expensive. So I will say that, at least in my experience, and I'm not sure what you've seen, Linda, but in my experience, I'm not seeing a lot of mass arbitrations. They are challenging also from the plaintiff's attorney side. I mean, they are big cases that require a lot of time and investment of resources from the plaintiff's side. So we haven't seen as many as we thought we might see. That said, I will say that if an employer gets hit by one, it can be challenging. But Linda, I'm curious if you're seeing very many mass arbitrations.
SPEAKER_02:I think there's a future where you may see more of those. It's going to depend how it develops. And yes, we have seen them before. I think it's important to remember that as an arbitrator and mediator, both the arbitrator and the mediator have to be neutral. And that is extremely important. AHLA does have a process where they've got a panel, a dispute review panel. And if the parties... or counsel have an issue with the proceeding that is occurring, they do have and can file a petition for removal. So that doesn't end up in the courts either. It is reviewed. It is usually reviewed without the arbitrator or arbitrators ever knowing that it has been filed. And a decision and opinion is provided by the dispute review panel. And Again, the whole thing is the idea of neutrality, ethics, the roles, and keeping things private. Our justice system is lengthy, it's long, it's not private. It's important, and I think this is talking about the future, it's important for our arbitration system to be one that the parties can afford and can complete in a relatively short timeframe. And counsel, and the arbitration administrator and the arbitrator need to keep that in mind. I see the use of arbitration and mediation increasing if we do that. So with that said, do you have any other items that you want to discuss, Chris? I want to thank you for the chance of doing this discussion today. I think that It has been informative. And yes, I am wrapping things up. So do you have anything
SPEAKER_01:you want to add? No, no, just thank you. Thanks a lot for the chance to visit with you this afternoon about arbitration. I think it's a really interesting area. And I think it already is changing. you know, the world of employment litigation. And I think it will continue to do so and impact how we resolve claims. And I, you know, I'm hopeful, I'm hopeful that mediation in particular, mediation and arbitration will ultimately lead to a, I guess, an overall process where employment disputes can be resolved much more quickly and effectively and for the benefit of both employees and employers. I don't think it benefits employees either to have to wait years for disputes to be resolved. So I think there's a lot of potential there. But thanks a lot for the opportunity to visit with you this afternoon on these topics. It's been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_02:And it has been a pleasure too. Thank you very much.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to subscribe to AHLA's Speaking of Health Law wherever you get your podcasts. To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.