Sweidan v. Noble AMA Select IPA Medical
Filed 6/8/06 Sweidan v. Noble AMA Select IPA Medical CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| JACOB SWEIDAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NOBLE AMA SELECT IPA MEDICAL GROUP, INC., Defendant and Appellant. | G035538 (Super. Ct. No. 04CC01450) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Hugh Michael Brenner, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick K. Moore Law Corporation, Patrick K. Moore and Diane L. Ellis for Defendant and Appellant.
Cron, Israels & Stark, Edward C. Stark and Dana C. Reimus for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The trial court confirmed an arbitration award in favor of neonatologist Jacob Sweidan in his billing dispute with Noble AMA Select IPA Medical Group, Inc. (Noble). On appeal, Noble argues the judgment must be reversed because the arbitrator was corrupt within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2.[1] Specifically, Noble maintains Jack Sills, the Medical Director of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the University of California Irvine Medical Center (UCI Medical Center), failed to (1) disclose his business relationship with Sweidan, (2) reveal ex parte communications received from Sweidan's counsel, and (3) conduct a hearing. In addition, Noble asserts Sills impermissibly followed legal advice from Sweidan's counsel and exceeded his authority by making the award. We affirm the judgment.
Background and Facts
Before analyzing the issue at hand, a few basic concepts concerning medical billing practices are useful to facilitate the discussion. Noble is an â€
