Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, Disputing blog has worked to synthesize guidance documents from a variety of sources including the AAA, CIArb, CPR, Hogan Lovells, the ICC, and the Seoul Protocol to provide readers with a comprehensive list of best practices for online dispute resolution.

Last week, the ABA Judicial Division Lawyers Conference Special Masters Committee held a webinar titled “A Brainstorming Session: Using Special Masters to Help Courts Deal with the Challenges of the Pandemic.” 

Yesterday, the Civil Jury Project at NYU School of Law published its June 2020 Jury Matters newsletter. 

As communication increasingly moves online, practitioners are becoming more comfortable interacting over video conference.

by Holly Hayes The Health Service Journal for Healthcare Leaders, a British publication, posted an article in September 2012 titled “Mediation? Now you’re talking” authored by David Liddle, founder and chief executive of the TCM Group and president of the Professional Mediators’ Association. The post references a survey of 122 National Health Service (NHS) trusts regarding workplace grievances. Survey results indicate “83 per cent are already using mediation to resolve workplace disputes, with 87 per cent of those trusts reporting a significant reduction in the number of grievances. Forty-three per cent of trusts reported a fall in the number of employment tribunals – directly attributable to introducing a mediation scheme.” Evidence from the survey suggests that NHS trusts are using mediation to secure positive outcomes within an increasingly complex and challenging range of conflicts and change processes. Gill Bellord, head of employee relations at NHS Employers, is enthusiastic about the role of mediation. “NHS Employers supports the increased use of mediation in the NHS as an effective means of resolving complaints, managing change and handling workplace disputes. There are benefits in terms of outcomes, maintaining on-going relationships and value for money.” The article mentions cost as an advantage of mediation in the National Health System. Gemma Brown, an employment solicitor at specialist public services law firm TPP Law, stated: “Typically, there are a number of stakeholders involved in a dispute involving an NHS trust. As a consequence of this, legal costs can escalate dramatically. I believe NHS trusts would be wise to explore the possibility of mediation in resolving a dispute both at the outset and throughout the matter as this may prove to be an effective way of resolving differences and as such keeping costs to a minimum.” The Northumbria Healthcare Trust reported estimated savings from mediation. The trust calculated costs of their basic grievance process to be around £1,800 ($2880). This amount does not include the cost of the affect of a grievance on staff morale and work time lost due to stress or affects of conflict on team productivity. By comparison, the average cost of mediation by an in-house mediator is approximately £520 ($830). Examples of where mediation is being used in the NHS include: change processes or re-organizations, the merger of services and staff, patient complaints and the care of seriously ill children. We welcome any comments on how mediation can be used in the healthcare field in the US. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.

by Holly Hayes The following changes to HB 2605 impacting the resolution of medical fee disputes within the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation were adopted on May 11, 2012, and become effective May 31, 2012. HB 2605 made several legislative amendments that impact the resolution of medical fee dispute cases adjudicated by the Division. This bill enacted Labor Code §413.0312, which alters the appeals process applicable to medical fee disputes after the Division’s review under Labor Code §413.031. Newly added Labor Code §413.0312 provides one appeal process for medical fee disputes regardless of the amount of reimbursement sought. Prior to the enactment of HB 2605, appeals of medical fee disputes were handled by a Division contested case hearing (CCH) if the amount of reimbursement sought by the requestor in an individual fee dispute was $2,000 or less or a contested case hearing conducted by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) if the amount of reimbursement sought exceeded $2,000. Parties who had exhausted all administrative remedies and who were aggrieved by the final decision of SOAH could seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code. Pursuant to Labor Code §413.0312, the appealing party is now required to mediate the medical fee dispute at a benefit review conference (BRC) under Labor Code Chapter 410, Subchapter B. If the dispute remains unresolved after a BRC, the parties may elect to engage in binding arbitration as provided by Labor Code §413.0312(d) and under Chapter 410, Subchapter C. However, if arbitration is not elected, the party is entitled to a contested case hearing at SOAH to resolve the dispute in the manner provided for a contested case under Chapter 2001, Government Code. A party who has exhausted all administrative remedies and who is aggrieved by a final decision of SOAH may seek judicial review of the decision in the manner provided for judicial review of a contested case under Chapter 2001, Subchapter G Government Code and Labor Code §413.031(k-1).   Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.