Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Appellate Win Clarifies Waiver of Contractual Right to Arbitrate

Client Alert
April 12, 2021

Brennan, Manna & Diamond, LLC attorneys David M. Scott, Lucas K. Palmer, and Krista D. Warren prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit regarding if/when a party waives a contractual right to arbitrate. Borror Property Management, LLC v. Oro Karric North, LLC, No. 20-3146 (the “Decision”).

BMD clients Oro Karric North, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, “Oro”) entered into a property management agreement with Borror Property Management, LLC (“Borror”), in which Borror agreed to manage several apartment properties owned by Oro. The property management agreement stated that, “[i]f either party shall notify the other that any matter is to be determined by arbitration,” the parties would proceed to arbitration unless the matter could be resolved.

Oro came to believe that Borror breached the management agreement, so Oro sent various correspondence and demand letters to Borror prior to filing suit/arbitration (what Judge Readler, author of the Decision, describes as the “legal equivalent of a shot across the bow”). Oro went so far as to threaten litigation. Borror declined to compromise and instead filed suit against Oro in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Oro promptly moved to compel arbitration, but the District Court denied, holding that Oro’s pre-suit threat to litigate constituted a waiver of Oro’s contractual right to require arbitration. Oro appealed.

On appeal, Borror argued that the District Court was correct in deeming Oro’s pre-litigation letters to constitute a waiver of its contractual right to arbitrate. But the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals notes that strong public policy considerations favor arbitration, and “the exchange of letters between parties as a prelude to more formal dispute resolution is a time-honored tradition.” Further noting that Oro almost immediately moved to compel arbitration after the suit was filed, the Sixth Circuit holds that Borror was not prejudiced and sending a pre-suit “posturing” letter does not constitute a waiver.

Takeaway: This significant precedent has already been cited as authoritative in numerous decisions regarding if/when parties waive the right to arbitrate. Knowing how far one may push in negotiations can make the difference between resolution or impasse and help a party control its own destiny in a conflict scenario.

For any litigation or arbitration questions, please contact Litigation Member David Scott at dmscott@bmdllc.com.

David ScottChristopher CalpinBrennan Manna Diamond6th Circuit Court of AppealsLitigation
Client Alert

IMPORTANT PRF UPDATE! HRSA Allows Providers the Opportunity to Correct Missed Period 1 Reporting

April 7, 2022Late Wednesday, April 6, HRSA announced that it was going to allow providers with extenuating circumstances that prevented them from preventing a completed Period 1 Report to submit a Request to Report Late Due to Extenuating Circumstances.Client Alert

Advanced Practice Providers and Telemedicine Start-Up Surge

March 8, 2022Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we heard a lot about “surges” that happened all over the country regarding the virus. One of the other interesting “surges” we have followed is the “surge” in new healthcare business start-ups, particularly businesses owned by advanced practice providers, such as nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, clinical nurse specialists, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (“Advanced Practice Providers” or “APPs”). One of the hottest areas in the healthcare start-up surge has been the creation of practices that are telemedicine focused.Client Alert

Ohio Department of Health Releases Updated Charge Limits for Medical Records

March 7, 2022Under Ohio law, a healthcare provider or medical records company that receives a request for a copy of a patient's medical record may charge an amount in accordance with the limits set forth in Ohio Revised Code Section 3701.741. The allowable amounts are increased or decreased annually by the average percentage of increase or decrease in the consumer price index for all urban consumers, prepared by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, for the immediately preceding calendar year over the calendar year immediately preceding that year, as reported by the Bureau. The Director of the Ohio Department of Health makes this determination and adjusts the amounts accordingly. The list is then published, here.Client Alert

No Surprises Act Compliance (Published by NAMAS, 2/25/22)

March 7, 2022The Department of Health and Human Services published three parts to the No Surprises Act towards the end of 2021, which took effect January 1, 2022. The Act is intended to protect consumers from “balance billing,” which occurs when a patient receives a bill with a higher price than they may have anticipated because they did not have knowledge that the provider or facility was out-of-network. The purpose of this article is to note certain requirements that compliance employees will need to be aware of at their facilities, including notice and consent, good faith estimates, and public disclosures.Client Alert

No Surprises Act and You (Published in the SCMS Winter 2022 Newsletter)

March 3, 2022Legislation has been adopted by the United States Congress and the Ohio Legislature known as the “No Surprises Act” which attempts to regulate billing by professionals and facilities to patients who are not in networks with those facilities or providers at those facilities. The federal bill was triggered by some sensational news stories of patients being billed for tens of thousands of dollars for emergency care when the hospital was out of the network under the patient’s insurance plans.
Older posts
Newer posts