Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0824-14T2
05-19-2016
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE GROUP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NORTH JERSEY SURGERY CENTER a/s/o RABHA AWARI, Defendant-Appellant.
Kimberly A. Kopp argued the cause for appellant (Massood & Bronsnick, LLC, attorneys; Noel Santorelli, on the brief). Curtis J. Turpan argued the cause for respondent (Harwood Lloyd, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Turpan, of counsel and on the brief; Paul E. Kiel, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes, Koblitz and Kennedy. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. L-6883-14. Kimberly A. Kopp argued the cause for appellant (Massood & Bronsnick, LLC, attorneys; Noel Santorelli, on the brief). Curtis J. Turpan argued the cause for respondent (Harwood Lloyd, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Turpan, of counsel and on the brief; Paul E. Kiel, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Defendant North Jersey Surgery Center, a/s/o Rabha Awari, appeals from a September 23, 2014 order of the Law Division, which dismissed its counterclaim to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award in favor of plaintiff New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial judge failed to utilize the statutory criteria for vacating an arbitration award, N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-13, and that its claims were not barred by collateral estoppel. Discerning no applicable exception, based on the statutory prohibition of appellate review set forth in N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-18(b), we dismiss this appeal.
Awari was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 31, 2008. At that time, she was an insured of plaintiff, and was eligible to receive personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. As a result of the accident, Awari received medical treatment from defendant, including certain injections. Defendant obtained an assignment of Awari's claim for PIP benefits. After a dispute arose regarding those benefits, defendant filed a demand for arbitration on October 9, 2009 with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), seeking payment from plaintiff for Awari's medical treatment between January 10 and August 1, 2009.
The insurance policy contained a New Jersey Basic PIP Endorsement that required plaintiff to pay its insured certain losses related to personal injury caused by accidents involving "a private passenger automobile." N.J.S.A. 39:6A-2(a), -4.
NAF is New Jersey's former No-Fault Insurance PIP arbitration administrator. See Forthright, http://www.nj-no-fault.com/ (last visited May 16, 2016).
The arbitration was heard before Dispute Resolution Professional (DRP) Joseph J. Riva, Esq. in April 2012. DRP Riva issued a written decision denying defendant's claims stating the following:
Based upon the proofs presented, I conclude that the only valid appeal relates to the 06/03/09 date of service. [Regarding] the other dates of service, [defendant's] appeals are invalid in light of [plaintiff's Internal Appeals Process], which requires specification of the issues accompanied by supporting documentation at least 21 days prior to initiating arbitration. For that reason, [Awari's assignment of benefits (AOB)] is void as to the 01/10/09, 03/07/09, 03/28/09, 04/18/09, and 08/01/09 dates of services, which renders [defendant] ineligible to proceed with this arbitration as to these dates of service. The AOB is effective for the 06/03/09 date of service, and I so conclude.
[(Citations omitted).]
In November, nearly five months after DRP Riva issued the arbitration award, defendant filed an appeal with plaintiff for the denied dates of service. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of defendant's appeal and denied coverage. Defendant then renewed its demand for arbitration with Forthright's New Jersey No-Fault PIP arbitration program.
Defendant also obtained a new AOB from Awari.
Forthright is the successor to NAF, beginning its term on April 1, 2011. Forthright Awarded New Jersey No-Fault Arbitration Contract, Forthright, http://www.nj-no-fault.com/users/nj/resources/NJ%20PIP%20contract%20award%20press%20release%20_1-27-11.pdf (last visited May 16, 2015). --------
The second arbitration was heard before DRP David M. LaPorta, Esq. in May 2014. DRP LaPorta issued a written decision finding that defendant's demand with respect to the disputed dates of service was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
In July 2014, plaintiff filed an order to show cause with a verified complaint seeking to confirm DRP LaPorta's arbitration award. Defendant filed an answer with a counterclaim to vacate the award. Judge Robert C. Wilson issued a written opinion confirming the award. He wrote the following:
Defendant's contention that the award is incomplete is not enough to move the Court to consider the issue de novo. Defendant's claims of insufficiency or incompleteness are rendered moot by the substance of the decision of the arbitrator. Barring consideration of the claims for dates of service necessarily bars consideration for underpayment of those claims. Similarly, where there is no showing that the application of law to facts in this matter was erroneous, the Court will not be persuaded to overturn the arbitrator. [DRP] LaPorta did, indeed "decide all issues presented," but apparently did not do so on the terms proffered by [defendant]. Mere disagreement with that decision is not sufficient grounds to vacate the award, and the Court declines to do so.
In this matter, the arbitrator [DRP LaPorta] issued a well-reasoned and thoroughly researched 22-page opinion, finding that the claims at issue in this matter are, inter alia, barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. There is no evidence presented here that the arbitrator "exceed[ed] [his] power or so imperfectly execut[ed] that power that a final and definite award was not made," or that he committed prejudicial error in his application of law. This Court will not supplant the judgment of the arbitrator where it is supported by substantial evidence, and further finds that DRP LaPorta's decision wasn't erroneous. Thus, the Order to Show Cause is hereby GRANTED, and the counterclaim is DENIED.
[(Fourth, fifth, and sixth alterations in original).]
The New Jersey Alternative Procedure for Dispute Resolution Act (APDRA), N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-1 to -30, imposes strict limitations on the appeal of an arbitration award. Riverside Chiropractic Grp. v. Mercury Ins. Co., 404 N.J. Super. 228, 235 (App. Div. 2008). Pursuant to APDRA, "[u]pon the granting of an order confirming, modifying or correcting an [arbitration] award, a judgment or decree shall be entered by the court in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree. There shall be no further appeal or review of the judgment or decree." N.J.S.A. 2A:23A-18(b) (emphasis added). Exceptions to APDRA's general proscription of appellate review do exist. See, e.g., Fort Lee Surgery Ctr. v. Proformance Ins. Co., 412 N.J. Super. 99, 103-04 (App. Div. 2010) (permitting review "to determine whether the trial judge acted within APDRA's bounds"). In Mt. Hope Development Associates v. Mt. Hope Waterpower Project, L.P., 154 N.J. 141, 152 (1998), the Supreme Court recognized that appellate courts have a "special supervisory function" under APDRA. (Quoting Faherty v. Faherty, 97 N.J. 99, 109 (1984)). It also recognized that "there may be other limited circumstances where public policy would require appellate court review." Mt. Hope Dev. Assocs., supra, 154 N.J. at 152.
The Legislature "hoped that through the enactment of [APDRA] those parties that want a formal method of resolving disputes with predictable rules, procedures, and results but without the costs and delays associated with traditional litigation can be accommodated." Id. at 145 (quoting Sponsor's Statement to Assemb. A296 (enacted as L. 1987, ch. 54)). In that spirit, and in conformity with APDRA, we discern no reason to exercise our supervisory function. We therefore dismiss this appeal.
Dismissed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION