Weirton Medical Center, Inc. v. QHR Intensive Resources, LLC, No. 16-1647 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1647 WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. QHR INTENSIVE RESOURCES, LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00131-FPS) Submitted: March 3, 2017 Decided: March 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela A. Bresnahan, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Washington, D.C.; Peter A. Lusenhop, Mitchell A. Tobias, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Anthony Cillo, COHEN & GRIGSBY, PC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Athanasios Basdekis, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Ellis Reed-Hill Lesemann, LESEMANN & ASSOCIATES LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Weirton court’s Medical order Center, denying its Inc., motion appeals to from vacate the a district $1,486,903.11 arbitration award entered in favor of QHR Intensive Resources, LLC (“QIR”), confirming the award, and dismissing the complaint. We affirm. “This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration award.” Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 846 F.3d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 2017) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, “judicial review of an arbitration award in federal court is severely circumscribed and among the narrowest known at law.” Jones v. Dancel, 792 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 591 (2015). As such, “a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a party to the arbitration demonstrates that the award should be vacated under one of . . . four enumerated grounds” in 9 U.S.C. § 10 (2012). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As pertinent here, an arbitration award may be vacated if it “was procured by § 10(a)(1). by undue demonstrate corruption, fraud, or undue means.” 9 U.S.C. To establish that an arbitration award was procured means, “that the the party seeking fraud or vacatur corruption typically was (1) must not discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the 2 arbitration, (2) materially arbitration, and (3) evidence.” related established to by an issue clear and in the convincing MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610 F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). QIR, a consulting firm, contracted with Weirton to provide various hospital Weirton’s management financial terminated the proceedings. services health. agreement aimed Within and QIR at two improving years, commenced Weirton arbitration Among those to testify at the arbitration hearing were four interim officers whom QIR had selected for Weirton as part of QIR’s obligations under the agreement. As a result of QIR’s posthearing motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Weirton discovered that these witnesses had entered into compensation agreements with QIR. Weirton claims that these witnesses actively concealed the existence of these agreements, and that such misconduct impacted the outcome of the arbitration. We agree with the district court that none of the witnesses’ testimony relied on by Weirton constituted clear and convincing evidence of undue means. opportunity hearing and compensation to question failed to these witnesses inquire arrangements Moreover, Weirton had the made 3 as to with at the arbitration the existence QIR. Weirton of any cannot complain that these witnesses tried to conceal something that it never sought to discover. Finally, Weirton has not demonstrated a causal connection between the arbitration. witnesses’ testimony and the result of MCI Constructors, 610 F.3d at 858-59 & n.6. the While Weirton speculates that the arbitrator would have construed a contested contractual provision differently had he been aware of the witnesses’ allegedly false or misleading testimony, the arbitrator’s report makes clear that he found this to be an unambiguous provision that did not require additional evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
