By Holly Hayes The Lucian Leape Institute at the National Patient Safety Foundation released a report entitled “Unmet Needs:Teaching Physicians to Provide Safe Patient Care.” The report concludes that “[U.S.] medical schools are not doing an adequate job of facilitating student understanding of basic knowledge and the development of skills required for the provision of safe patient care.” The report’s 12 recommendations center on three main themes: Medical schools and teaching hospitals need to create learning cultures that emphasize patient safety, model professionalism, encourage transparency, and enhance collaborative behavior. They should have zero tolerance policies for egregious disrespectful or abusive behavior. Medical schools should teach patient safety as a basic science and ensure that students develop interpersonal and communication skills through experiences working in teams with nursing, pharmacy, and other professional students. Medical schools and teaching hospitals need to launch intensive faculty development programs to enable all faculty to acquire sufficient patient safety knowledge and to develop the interpersonal skills in teamwork and collaboration that permit them to function effectively as teachers and role models for students. A focus on teaching communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution skills in medical schools can be a major step toward more effective patient safety. We welcome your comments on this topic. 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.

Oral arguments in Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson, a case that we have been following on this blog, are scheduled at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, April 26. Here are some relevant details: Question Presented: Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision? Briefs Filed: (ABA links) Brief for Petitioner Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. Brief for Respondent Antonio Jackson Reply Brief for Petitioner Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Petitioner Brief for American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations in Support of Respondent Brief for Professional Arbitrators and Arbitration Scholars in Support of Respondent Brief for Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Alliance for Justice, Asian American Justice Center, Constitutional Accountability Center, National Partnership for Women & Families, and National Women’s Law Center in Support of Respondent Brief for National Association of Consumer Advocates in Support of Respondent Brief for American Association for Justice and AARP in Support of Respondent Brief for National Consumer Law Center and Consumer Action in Support of Respondent Brief for Service Employees International Union, Legal Aid Society – Employment Law Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Employment Law Project, Women’s Employment Rights Clinic, and The Employee Rights Advocacy Institute for Law & Policy in Support of Respondent Related Posts at Contracts Prof Blog: Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson II: Respondent’s Brief (April 12, 2010) Introducing Karen Halverson Cross and the Arbitration Roundtable (April 13, 2020) Karen Halverson Cross: Guest Post on Rent-A-Center v Jackson (April 15, 2010) Guest Post by Christopher Drahozal on Rent-A-Center (April 15, 2010) Reply Brief in Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson (April 19, 2010) Guest Post by Karen Halverson Cross on the Rent-A-Center Reply Brief (April 19, 2010) The Next Phase in Challenges to Arbitration Provisions: David Horton in the UCLA Law Review (April 20, 2010) Embarrassment of Riches: Guest Post by David Horton (April 21) Related Posts at Disputing: Recent Developments in Arbitration Unconscionability, with links to older posts (March 30, 2010) Arbitration Unconscionability Case: New Amicus Curiae Brief (April 6, 2010) Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

From the International law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP: What’s New in Arbitration? Developments, Decisions. A free copy of the report may be downloaded at www.fulbright.com/IAR17. Hard copies are available by e-mailing IAR@fulbright.com. The new 2010 International Arbitration Report, Issue 1 from Fulbright’s Arbitration and ADR Practice Group is just out. Courts, arbitration organizations and governments around the world have recently addressed important issues relating to arbitration on several fronts. Among the developments that Fulbright arbitration lawyers analyze in the current issue are: Recent developments concerning arbitration in China and enforcement of foreign awards in China National Navigation v. Endesa — the continuation of the West Tankers saga French Supreme Court decision confirming France’s transnational approach to arbitration agreements Proposed restatement of U.S. Law of International Commercial Arbitration Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration

In response to criticism that international arbitration is becoming as time consuming and costly as U.S. litigation, (read ABA article here) several arbitration associations have published guidelines recently: The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commission on Arbitration published a 2007 report entitled “Techniques for Controlling Time and Costs in Arbitration.” (available here) The report covers guidelines for the creation of the arbitration agreement, selection of arbitrator, preliminary procedural issues, as well as subsequent procedural issues. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), the international arm of the American Arbitration Association promulgated in 2008 its “ICDR Guidelines for Arbitrators Concerning Exchanges of Information.” (available here) The guidelines provide that “while arbitration must be a fair process, care must also be taken to prevent the importation of procedural measures and devices from different court systems, which may be considered conducive to fairness within those systems, but which are not appropriate to the conduct of arbitrations in an international context and which are inconsistent with an alternative form of dispute resolution that is simpler, less expensive, and more expeditious.” Under the guidelines, the only documents to be exchanged are those on which a party relies. The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators issued its “Protocol for E-Disclosure in Arbitration” in 2008. (available here). The protocol’s purpose is to focus early consideration upon disclosure of electronically stored information. The CPR International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution issued in 2009 its “Global Rules for Accelerated Commercial Arbitration” which when agreed by the parties, provides for one neutral with significant new powers to control discovery and requires rendering the award within six (6) months of the selection of the Arbitral Tribunal. (available here) The International Bar Association (IBA) published in 2009 a draft form of its “IBA Guidelines for Drafting International Arbitration Clauses.” (available here) The guidelines provide helpful comments and sample arbitration clauses. The Dispute Resolution Section of the New York State Bar Association published its “Report on Arbitration Discovery in Domestic Commercial Cases” in 2009. (available here) Despite its domestic focus, the recommendations are also helpful to international arbitrators. The objective of the report was to issue some guidelines of use to counsel and arbitrators to best handle the unpredictability issue of discovery proceedings in arbitration. The report provides ten precepts to help enable arbitrators to control the discovery process: (1) Good Judgment of the Arbitrator, (2) Early Attention to Discovery by the Arbitrator, (3) Party Preferences, (4) E-discovery, (5) Legal Considerations, (6) Arbitrator Tools (7) Artfully Drafted Arbitration Clauses, (8) Depositions, (9) Discovery Disputes, and (10) Discovery & Other Procedural Aspects of Arbitration. Technorati Tags: law, ADR, arbitration