Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Vacating, Modifying or Correcting an Arbitration Award Under R.C. 2711.13: Three-Month Limitation Maximum; Not Guaranteed Amount of Time

Client Alert
June 8, 2021

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award.

R.C. 2711.13 provides that “after an award in an arbitration proceeding is made, any party to the arbitration may file a motion in the court of common pleas for an order vacating, modifying, or correcting the award.” Any such motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award “must be served upon the adverse party or his attorney within three months after the award is delivered to the parties in interest.” In BST Ohio Corporation et al. v. Wolgang, the Court held the three-month period set forth in R.C. 2711.13 is not a guaranteed time period in which to file a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award. 2021-Ohio-1785.

The Court emphasized that in R.C. 2711.13, the General Assembly “specifically addressed the discretionary power of the trial court to stay proceedings in the interest of fairness to both parties… [and therefore] the trial court is empowered to balance the interests of the parties.” Id. Now, “the limitation period in R.C. 2711.13 as an upper limit that may be shortened by another party’s filing a pleading or motion to which a response is required.” Id.

Ultimately, if and when a party to the arbitration files to confirm the award before the expiration of the three-month period following the date of the award, “any party that wishes to oppose confirmation must, within the three-month period, respond with a motion to vacate, modify, or correct the award, on the date of or before the hearing on the application to confirm.” Id. The Court explained that “failing to do so may result in the award’s being confirmed.” Id.

For additional questions, please contact Business & Corporate Law Attorney Krista Warren at kdwarren@bmdllc.com.

business and corporate lawKrista WarrenArbitration Agreements
Client Alert

A Shift in Coverage: HHS Reinterprets “Federal Public Benefit” Under PRWORA

July 16, 2025The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rescinded a 1998 interpretation of “federal public benefit” used in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) on July 10, 2025. This notice removes "outdating exclusions" and includes additional programs under “federal public benefit."Client Alert

Supreme Court Upholds Coverage under the Affordable Care Act

July 10, 2025The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force under the ACA, ensuring continued no-cost coverage for over 100 preventive health services. The decision impacts millions of Americans and preserves provider reimbursement through insurance.Client Alert

Health Care Providers Take Note: Federal Budget Brings Medicaid and Staffing Rule Changes

July 7, 2025The 2025 federal budget introduces significant changes for health care providers and Medicaid recipients, including new cost-sharing requirements, work eligibility mandates, rural health grants, and a pause on minimum staffing rules.Client Alert

Key Healthcare Provisions in Ohio’s 2026–2027 Budget

July 2, 2025Ohio’s newly enacted biennial budget (HB 96) for FY 2026–2027 brings sweeping changes for healthcare providers across the state. The law includes new Medicaid eligibility requirements, reporting mandates, funding directives, and social policy provisions. Several vetoes by Governor DeWine also affect healthcare-related initiatives.Client Alert

Providers Beware: Court Sides with Insurers in No Surprises Act Arbitration

July 2, 2025On June 12, 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Aetna and Kaiser in two lawsuits brought by air ambulance providers challenging how insurers calculated payments under the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution process. The court held that unless there is clear evidence of fraud or serious misconduct, IDR decisions will stand, reinforcing the finality of the arbitration process.
Older posts
Newer posts