M.D. Seema L. Mishra v. Doctors Hosp. of Augusta, No. 09-12548 (11th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 09-12548 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Dec. 03, 2009 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 05-00101-CV-1-DHB-WLB M. D. SEEMA L. MISHRA, on her own behalf, individually, and on behalf of her patients, both private pay and those receiving Medicaid or Medicare from the federal government or financial assistance for health care from the State of South Carolina, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF AUGUSTA, LLC, and its parent, The Corporation of America (sic, Healthcare Corporation HCA, Inc., privately and under color of law of America), Defendants-CrossClaimant-Appellees, THE CENTER FOR PRIMARY CARE, Defendant-CrossDefendant-Appellee, JIM LARSON, GALEN HOLDCO, LLC, privately and under color of law, et al. Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia _________________________ (December 3, 2009) Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal arises from the district court s order compelling arbitration and subsequently confirming the arbitrator s award of damages, fees and costs against plaintiff for violating her recruitment agreement with defendants. We have reviewed the parties briefs and the record excerpts and conclude that the district court did not err in compelling arbitration or in affirming the arbitration award. Plaintiff did not substantiate her denial of the arbitration contract with evidence sufficient to made the denial colorable. Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey Co., 957 F.2d 851, 855 (1th Cir. 1985). Nor did she demonstrate that the subsequent award falls into those narrow circumstances where we are authorized to set it aside. See First Options of Chicago, Inc., v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942 (1995). She has shown neither fraud, partiality, misconduct nor malfeasance on the part of the arbitrator. Nor has she demonstrated that the award was arbitrary, violative of public policy or entered in manifest disregard of the law. See Scott v. 2 Prudential Sec. Inc., 141 F.3d 1007, 1017 (11th Cir. 1998). In the absence of such showings, we are without authority to vacate the award. Accordingly, the district court s Order affirming the arbitrator s award and judgment for defendants is hereby AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
