Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

Client Alert

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award.

R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.

The Court emphasized that in R.C. 2711.13, the General Assembly “specifically addressed the discretionary power of the trial court to stay proceedings in the interest of fairness to both parties… [and therefore] the trial court is empowered to balance the interests of the parties.” Id. Now, “the limitation period in R.C. 2711.13 as an upper limit that may be shortened by another party’s filing a pleading or motion to which a response is required.” Id.

Ultimately, if and when a party to the arbitration files to confirm the award before the expiration of the three-month period following the date of the award, “any party that wishes to oppose confirmation must, within the three-month period, respond with a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, on the date of or before the hearing on the application to confirm.” Id. The Court explained that “failing to do so may result in the award’s being confirmed.” Id.

For additional questions, please contact Business & Corporate Law Attorney Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com.


What Inpatient Behavioral Health Providers Need to Know About ODM's New Draft Rule for Reimbursements

Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) recently released a draft rule that will transform how inpatient behavioral health services are reimbursed for some hospitals. ODM will migrate inpatient payments for behavioral health and substance use disorder services (BH/SUD) provided by freestanding psychiatric hospitals (FSPs) from the APR-DRG payment methodology to a per diem payment methodology derived from the APR-DRG system.

BMD Named to the 2024 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”

Brennan Manna & Diamond (BMD) is recognized among the leading law firms in the nation according to the 2024 Edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers®  "Best Law Firms." The firm has ranked in in 13 practice areas and has earned “National Tier 1” rankings in Health Care Law and Litigation-Trusts & Estates.

Friendly Physician Models: The Basics Through 5 Frequently Asked Questions

During the past several years, many health law practices have noticed a dramatic increase in the number of telehealth businesses and private equity backed health care providers. Both of these trends often rely heavily on corporate structures commonly referred to as “friendly physician,” “captive PC” or “MSO” models. Although friendly physician models are used by non-physician health care providers (e.g., physical therapists, psychologists, and dentists), this article focuses on physicians and how the model is used in connection with the provision of professional medical services.

The DOL and EEOC Enter a Partnership to Strengthen Federal Employment Law Enforcement

On September 13, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to work together in enforcing federal employment laws. The MOU forms a partnership between the two agencies to encourage coordination through information sharing, joint investigations, training, and outreach.

Proposed Laboratory Arrangement Draws Heightened Scrutiny from the OIG

On September 25, 2023, the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) issued Advisory Opinion 23-06 (AO). The Opinion involved a proposed arrangement between an independent laboratory and other physician laboratories for the purchase of the technical component of anatomic pathology services. The OIG ultimately concluded that the arrangement at issue, if it was entered into with the requisite intent, would implicate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) and constitute grounds for sanctions.