As readers may know, General Motors and Chrysler are planning to close nearly 2,000 dealerships as part of their reorganization plan. The New York Times reports on a House bill that would provide for binding arbitration as a way for car dealers to appeal the termination of their franchise agreements. The House has approved a compromise plan to give General Motors and Chrysler dealers an appeals process to keep their showrooms open. GM and Chrysler have attempted to shed dealerships as part of their government-led bankruptcies. But the moves have riled up members of Congress, who have received numerous complaints from dealers being shut down. A $1.1 trillion spending bill approved Thursday includes provisions to give 789 Chrysler dealers closed in June and more than 1,350 GM dealers expected to be shut down next year an opportunity to challenge the automakers’ decisions. Read more here.

by Holly Hayes In June, we discussed the passage of Texas House Bill 2256, which provides a procedure for mediation of out-of-network health benefit claim disputes. Patients in Texas now have the option to mediate when they are ‘balance-billed’ by their insurance company for services provided by out-of-network facility-based physicians like radiologists, pathologists, neonatologists, and emergency room physicians. (post available here) In October, the Dallas Morning News reported on the practice of ‘balance billing.’ The article cited an example of a patient who went to an emergency room in Denton to receive treatment. The hospital was in his insurer’s network, but the emergency room physician was not. The patient was billed for the balance not paid by his insurer. (read more here) In November H.R. 3962, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act,” was introduced in the U.S. House. (bill status is here) In the definition of “cost sharing,” the bill specifically excludes “balance billing amounts for non-network providers” in out-of-pocket payments which are capped for an individual at $5,000 or $10,000 for a family. Balance billed amounts would not be included in the out-of-pocket caps. (read more here) According to the Wall Street Journal, while other states have addressed aspects of ‘balance billing,’ no other states appear to have included an option for patients to request mediation for resolution of ‘balance billing’ amounts. Some states have banned ‘balance billing’ of the patient altogether. In January, the California Supreme Court ruled that emergency-room patients can no longer be billed by hospitals and doctors for treatment that is not fully paid for by their health plans and that billing disputes must be resolved solely between providers and health plans. The California Department of Managed Health Care said that Connecticut, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have also banned ‘balance billing.’ (read more here) Technorati Tags: Healthcare, ADR, law, mediation 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.

As we were ready to wrap-up the year, the U.S. Supreme Court decides yet another arbitration case. In Union Pacific v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. ___(Dec. 8, 2009), the issue before the Court was whether pre-arbitration conference was a jurisdictional requirement. We will post a summary of the case after we read it and it will be added to our 2009 Year-End post as well.

Continuing with our 2009 Year-End Highlights series, we present today a summary of noteworthy arbitration opinions handed down by the Texas Supreme Court. The landmark case In re Poly-America, L.P. , 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008) decided in 2008, involves a retaliatory-discharge claim. The court concluded that fee-splitting schemes in an arbitration agreement are unconscionable. (post available here) In February, the court decided three arbitration-related cases: (1) In In re: Labatt Food Service, L.P. the court resolves the issue of whether nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement should be compelled to arbitrate claims when the decedent’s claims would have to be arbitrated. (2) In re Jindal followed Labatt‘s precedent. The court held that an arbitration agreement between a decedent and his employer required the nonsignatories beneficiaries to arbitrate their claims. (3) In re Bank of America, N.A., presents the the issue of enforceability of contractual jury waivers. The court analyzed their similarities with arbitration clauses, both falling within the category of forum- selection clauses. In April, the court ruled on In re Gulf Exploration, LLC. The issue was whether mandamus review of orders compelling arbitration should be entirely precluded. (post available here) In June, the court decided two arbitration-related cases: (1) In re International Profit Associates, Inc. The court held that a party challenging a forum-selection clause has the burden of proving the clause is invalid. (post available here) (2) The court held that a post-injury arbitration acknowledgment agreement is valid and compelled arbitration of tort claims within the context of an employment contract. In re Macy’s Texas, Inc. (post available here) Perhaps the most significant case decided this year by the Texas Supreme Court was In re Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. The court applied Prima Paint‘s separability doctrine, Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). The court declined to follow Fifth Circuit precedent and held that the court, not the arbitrator should decide the issue of capacity to contract. (post available here and comments by Professor Alan Scott Rau are here) In July, the court held that a district court abused its discretion by permitting discovery instead of deciding a motion to compel arbitration, In re Houston Pipe Line Co. (post available here) In October, the court decided In re Polymerica. The court held that an agreement to arbitrate discrimination claims between an employee and a staffing agency hired by the employer survives the dissolution of the contract between the staffing agency and employer. (post available here) Also in October, Chrysler Insurance Co. v. Greenspoint Dodge of Houston, Inc., was decided by the court. The case deals with a dispute over insurance coverage to pay for a $1.5 million defamation arbitration award granted to a former employee. (post available here) In November, the court held in In re Golden Peanut Co., that wrongful death beneficiaries nonsignatories to an arbitration agreement must be compelled to arbitrate when the decedent’s claims would had been arbitrated. (post available here) Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, Texas Supreme Court