Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, M.D.

Case Updates

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Third Circuit holding that the arbitrator's decision survives the limited judicial review provided by the FAA.

NCLC urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Third Circuit which upheld an arbitrator’s decision to order class arbitration based solely on a clause—essential to any mandatory arbitration agreement—that required the parties to arbitrate rather than litigate all disputes arising from their agreement.

NCLC argued in its amicus brief that the arbitrator's decision conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), as well as recent Supreme Court precedent, including AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion and Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp. NCLC explains that unlike litigation, private arbitration is purely a matter of consent, not coercion. By agreeing to arbitrate, parties are able to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation by submitting to a streamlined yet fair process based upon the mutual consent of the parties. Compelling parties to resolve disputes through costly, time-consuming, and high-stakes class arbitration, when the parties have not agreed to do so, frustrates the parties’ intent, undermines their agreements, and erodes the benefits offered by arbitration as an alternative to litigation. Imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to that procedure conflicts with the central goal of the FAA: to ensure that arbitration agreements are enforced strictly according to the terms adopted by the parties.

Click here to view the Chamber's brief.