Earlier this year, the ADR section of the State Bar of Texas organized a mediation workshop in Houston, Texas. The participants discussed the following questions: What does the Mediation Table look like in 2009 compared to 1989? How Do Experienced Mediators Facilitate Distributive Bargaining? How Do Experienced Mediators Facilitate Integrative Bargaining? How Do Experienced Mediators Facilitate the Closing of Mediation? What are Intuitive and Counter-Intuitive Approaches for Mediators? A document containing a compilation of the answers is available here. Hat tip to Disputing‘s blog contributor Don Philbin. Technorati Tags: ADR, law, mediation

by Holly Hayes In September, President Obama authorized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to allocate $25 million for medical liability reform pilot projects. Grant proposals may be submitted beginning December 20 and are due by January 20, 2010. Additional details on the grant application process are available at American Medical News. The purpose of these grants is as follows: This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) solicits applications for planning grants from States and health care systems for patient safety and medical liability innovations that put patient safety first and work to reduce preventable injuries; foster better communication between doctors and their patients; ensure that patients are compensated in a fair and timely manner for medical injuries, while also reducing the incidence of frivolous lawsuits; and reduce liability premiums. States and health systems “will have to collect data to show the innovation worked and had an impact on liability claims and the cost of malpractice insurance, as well as on patient safety. So we are looking at both sides of the equation,” said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, MD. “Ultimately, to get a grant under this program, applicants have to evaluate the impact on patient safety. That is the overarching objective.” Technorati Tags: Tort Reform, Healthcare President Obama, arbitration, 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.

Karl Bayer and I were discussing the latest bill tracking report for the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009. This act would ban mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in employment, consumer, and franchise contracts. (House version: H.R. 1020 and Status; Senate version: S. 931 and Status). The House version of the bill has been very active, now with 99 co-sponsors (the list is here). Karl wonders if Senator Franken’s amendment and related press had anything to do with the bill having this unusual number of new co-sponsors. Any thoughts? Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, legislation, Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009

The Supreme Court of Texas 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. In the present case, In re Polymerica, __S.W.3d __ (Tex. 2009) (No. 08-1064), Polymerica, L.L.C. d.b.a Global Enterprises, Inc. (“Global”), a manufacture of plastics, hired Angelica Soltero in 1998. In 2002, Global contracted with dmDickason Staff Leasing Company (“Dickason”) to manage the company’s human resources department. Shortly thereafter, Soltero signed a Dispute Resolution Plan, which “appl[ies] to any disputes between dmDickason/Global Enterprises and any applicant for employment, employee or former employee, including legal claims such as discrimination, wrongful discharge or harassment.” The Plan calls for binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. On December 31, 2005, Global ended its contract with Dickason and resumed the management of its human resources department. Global terminated Soltero five days later. Then, Soltero sued Global claiming wrongful termination based on her national origin as well as retaliation for reporting alleged sexual harassment. The trial court denied Global’s motion to compel arbitration concluding that all of Soltero’s claims arose from the wrongful termination after the agreement between Global and Dickason had ended. Global appealed. The Texas Supreme Court, distinguishing In re Neutral Posture, Inc., 135 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.), stated that “[t]here is no such time limitation in the Dispute Resolution Plan, nor there is a condition that the Global and Dickason relationship must be in place for either to enforce the Plan.” The court concluded that Soltero’s promise to arbitrate includes her claims against Global and directed the trial court to compel arbitration. Technorati Tags: arbitration, ADR, law, Texas Supreme Court