• Home
  • RSS Feeds
  • Blog Archives
Subscribe to Disputing
Book an ADR Service
Call Karl Bayer
Karl Bayer's Disputing Blog - Mediator, Arbitrator, Court Master & Technical Advisor
About Karl  |  Book an ADR Service  |  Contact Karl   (214) 891-4505

Menu 
  • home
  • Mediation
  • Arbitration
  • Court Neutrals
  • Online Dispute Resolution
  • Technology
    • Intellectual Property
    • Privacy and Cybersecurity
    • E-discovery
  • Court Decisions
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • Fifth Circuit
    • Third Court of Appeals
    • U.S. Supreme Court
  • More
    • Legislation
      • Texas
      • United States
    • Healthcare
    • Guest Posts
      • John DeGroote
      • John C. Fleming
      • Rick Freeman
      • Professor Peter Friedman
      • Honorable W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
      • James M. Gaitis
      • Laura A. Kaster
      • Professor John Lande
      • Philip J. Loree, Jr.
      • Michael McIlwrath
      • F. Peter Phillips
      • Professor Alan Scott Rau
      • Professor Thomas J. Stipanowich
      • Professor S.I. Strong
      • Richard Webb
      • Glen M. Wilkerson
    • International arbitration
    • Regulation
    • Sports and Entertainment


  • We’re Back!!!!
    Well, it’s been a while since we published and that is about to change.   Since I spent much of last year becoming
  • JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
    JAMS, the world’s largest private alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider, is pleased to announce that Karl Bayer
  • Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
    Linda S. Mullenix, Morris & Rita Atlas Chair in Advocacy at the University of Texas School of Law, has written “Class Ac
  • Picking the Proper Technological Tool for Problem-Solving in Arbitration
    Professor Amy J. Schmitz, John Deaver Drinko-Baker & Hostetler Chair in Law and Co-Director of the Translational Data An

Recent Posts

Illinois Federal Court Refuses to Send BIPA Lawsuit Filed Against Vimeo to Arbitration

By Beth Graham - June 5, 2020

The Northern District of Illinois has denied Vimeo’s motion to compel a proposed class action lawsuit alleging its recently acquired Magisto mobile web application violated the 12-year-old Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) to arbitration.

Continue reading...

Confidentiality and Cybersecurity in Online Dispute Resolution

By Beth Graham - June 4, 2020

Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, Disputing blog has worked to synthesize guidance documents from a variety of sources including the AAA, CIArb, CPR, Hogan Lovells, the ICC, and the Seoul Protocol to provide readers with a comprehensive list of best practices for online dispute resolution.

Continue reading...

ABA Committee Holds Webinar on Using Special Masters to Help Courts Deal with the Challenges of the Pandemic

By Beth Graham - June 3, 2020

Last week, the ABA Judicial Division Lawyers Conference Special Masters Committee held a webinar titled “A Brainstorming Session: Using Special Masters to Help Courts Deal with the Challenges of the Pandemic.” 

Continue reading...

Virtual Trial Protocols from the Civil Jury Project

By Beth Graham - June 2, 2020

Yesterday, the Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law published its June 2020 Jury Matters newsletter. 

Continue reading...
« First‹ Previous161718192021222324Next ›Last »

Arbitration

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Security and Confidentiality

By Kyle Bailey - May 12, 2020

Disputing is synthesizing guidance documents from the AAA, CIArb, CPR, Hogan Lovells, and the ICC, as well as the Seoul Protocol, to provide a comprehensive list of best practices for remote arbitration.

Continue reading...

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Technology

By Kyle Bailey - May 6, 2020

International Council for Online Dispute Resolution and National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution Facilitate ODR

By Beth Graham - April 24, 2020

Mediation

Online Voting for the GPC Series Open Until July 31st

By Beth Graham - July 23, 2017

The Global Pound Conference (“GPC”) Series is collecting votes from dispute resolution community stakeholders regarding “how to shape the future of commercial dispute resolution and improve access to justice in the 21st century.”

Continue reading...

Is a Mediator Like a Bus? How Legal Ethics May Inform the Question of Case Discrimination by Mediators

By Beth Graham - July 19, 2017

When Ignorance is Not Bliss: An Empirical Study of Litigants’ Awareness Of Court-Sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs

By Beth Graham - July 6, 2017

Healthcare Disputes

Healthcare Mediation Gaining Popularity in Britain

By Victoria VanBuren - October 26, 2012

by Holly Hayes The Health Service Journal for Healthcare Leaders, a British publication, posted an article in September 2012 titled “Mediation? Now you’re talking” authored by David Liddle, founder and chief executive of the TCM Group and president of the Professional Mediators’ Association. The post references a survey of 122 National Health Service (NHS) trusts regarding workplace grievances. Survey results indicate “83 per cent are already using mediation to resolve workplace disputes, with 87 per cent of those trusts reporting a significant reduction in the number of grievances. Forty-three per cent of trusts reported a fall in the number of employment tribunals – directly attributable to introducing a mediation scheme.” Evidence from the survey suggests that NHS trusts are using mediation to secure positive outcomes within an increasingly complex and challenging range of conflicts and change processes. Gill Bellord, head of employee relations at NHS Employers, is enthusiastic about the role of mediation. “NHS Employers supports the increased use of mediation in the NHS as an effective means of resolving complaints, managing change and handling workplace disputes. There are benefits in terms of outcomes, maintaining on-going relationships and value for money.” The article mentions cost as an advantage of mediation in the National Health System. Gemma Brown, an employment solicitor at specialist public services law firm TPP Law, stated: “Typically, there are a number of stakeholders involved in a dispute involving an NHS trust. As a consequence of this, legal costs can escalate dramatically. I believe NHS trusts would be wise to explore the possibility of mediation in resolving a dispute both at the outset and throughout the matter as this may prove to be an effective way of resolving differences and as such keeping costs to a minimum.” The Northumbria Healthcare Trust reported estimated savings from mediation. The trust calculated costs of their basic grievance process to be around £1,800 ($2880). This amount does not include the cost of the affect of a grievance on staff morale and work time lost due to stress or affects of conflict on team productivity. By comparison, the average cost of mediation by an in-house mediator is approximately £520 ($830). Examples of where mediation is being used in the NHS include: change processes or re-organizations, the merger of services and staff, patient complaints and the care of seriously ill children. We welcome any comments on how mediation can be used in the healthcare field in the US. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.

Continue reading...

Changes to Texas HB 2605

By Victoria VanBuren - October 18, 2012

by Holly Hayes The following changes to HB 2605 impacting the resolution of medical fee disputes within the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation were adopted on May 11, 2012, and become effective May 31, 2012. HB 2605 made several legislative amendments that impact the resolution of medical fee dispute cases adjudicated by the Division. This bill enacted Labor Code §413.0312, which alters the appeals process applicable to medical fee disputes after the Division’s review under Labor Code §413.031. Newly added Labor Code §413.0312 provides one appeal process for medical fee disputes regardless of the amount of reimbursement sought. Prior to the enactment of HB 2605, appeals of medical fee disputes were handled by a Division contested case hearing (CCH) if the amount of reimbursement sought by the requestor in an individual fee dispute was $2,000 or less or a contested case hearing conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) if the amount of reimbursement sought exceeded $2,000. Parties who had exhausted all administrative remedies and who were aggrieved by the final decision of SOAH could seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code. Pursuant to Labor Code §413.0312, the appealing party is now required to mediate the medical fee dispute at a benefit review conference (BRC) under Labor Code Chapter 410, Subchapter B. If the dispute remains unresolved after a BRC, the parties may elect to engage in binding arbitration as provided by Labor Code §413.0312(d) and under Chapter 410, Subchapter C. However, if arbitration is not elected, the party is entitled to a contested case hearing at SOAH to resolve the dispute in the manner provided for a contested case under Chapter 2001, Government Code. A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies and who is aggrieved by a final decision of SOAH may seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code and Labor Code §413.031(k-1).   Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.

Continue reading...
« First‹ Previous161718192021222324Next ›Last »

Legal Research

Legal Research

Connect with Disputing

Visit Us On LinkedinCheck Our Feed

About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.


About Disputing

Disputing is published by Karl Bayer, a dispute resolution expert based in Austin, Texas. Articles published on Disputing aim to provide original insight and commentary around issues related to arbitration, mediation and the alternative dispute resolution industry.

To learn more about Karl and his team, or to schedule a mediation or arbitration with Karl’s live scheduling calendar, visit www.karlbayer.com.

Recent Posts

We're Back!!!!
Feb 24, 2025
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
JAMS Welcomes Karl Bayer to its Panel of Neutrals
May 28, 2024
Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements: The Twenty-First Century Arbitration Battleground and Implications for the EU Countries
Nov 27, 2023

Featured Posts

Tips on Taking Good Remote Depositions From a Veteran Court Reporter

Online Mediation May Allow Restorative Justice to Continue During COVID-19

Remote Arbitration Best Practices: Witness Examination

Search

Legal Research

Legal Research


© 2025, Karl Bayer. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy