Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BS105852, Aureolio Munoz, Judge.
Hilda Ozante, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Arnold & Porter, Lawrence A. Cox, Brian K. Condon; Gittler & Bradford and Scott F. Bradford for Defendants and Respondents.
KRIEGLER, J.
Hilda Ozante appeals following the denial of her petition to vacate an arbitration award in favor of respondents Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Hospital, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Robert Klenck, M.D., and Robert Shinya Namba, M.D. Because the record discloses no legal basis requiring the arbitration award be vacated, we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition.
Following a binding arbitration, the agreed arbitrator, Retired Judge Michael Berg, rendered an award in favor of respondents in Ms. Ozante’s action for medical malpractice. The award was set forth in a seven-page, single-spaced typewritten decision. Judge Berg summarized the testimony received and concluded respondents had acted in conformity with the standard of care in performing a hip replacement and follow-up surgery.
Ms. Ozante filed a petition to vacate the arbitration award pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2. According to the petition, the arbitration award should be vacated because it was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue influence in that Judge Berg (1) failed to disclose prior medical malpractice litigation cases with Kaiser, (2) was biased against Ms. Ozante, (3) misconstrued the evidence presented by the parties, and (4) allowed respondents to commit perjury.
All statutory references in this opinion are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Ms. Ozante’s petition was supported by the following exhibits: the arbitration agreement; the decision of Judge Berg; Judge Berg’s denial of Ms. Ozante’s motion for reconsideration; correspondence between counsel for Ms. Ozante at the arbitration and Lawrence C. Mozan, M.D.; emails between Drs. Klenck and Namba; a prescription written by Dr. Klenck for a one and one-quarter inch lift in Ms. Ozante’s right shoe; a two-page musculoskeletal appraisal of Ms. Ozante by Dr. Klenck; two pages of unidentified deposition testimony; a five-page article, entitled “Is Justice Served,” pertaining to retired judges working in private arbitration; and Ms. Ozante’s seven-page correspondence asking to speak with Judge Berg in order to convince him that his award was erroneous.
Ms. Ozante was represented by counsel at the arbitration. Her petition was filed in propria persona.
Respondents filed an opposition to the petition. Respondents argued Judge Berg did not misinterpret the evidence or allow any witness to commit perjury, and in any event, the merits of an arbitration award are not reviewable for errors of fact or law. Respondents further argued Judge Berg did not fail to disclose any matter required by law, nor did Ms. Ozante present evidence of an impermissible nondisclosure. Finally, respondents argued Judge Berg was not biased and Ms. Ozante did not establish any facts supporting a claim of bias.
A minute order reflects the hearing on the petition was held in chambers. The petition was denied. Ms. Ozante filed a timely notice of appeal.
The denial of a petition to vacate an arbitration award is appealable. (§ 1294.)
DISCUSSION
Ms. Ozante argues the trial court erred in denying her petition. Ms. Ozante relies upon the same arguments she presented to the trial court in support of the petition.
The Legislature “has expressed a ‘strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution.’ [Citations.]” (Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1, 9.) “Thus, both because it vindicates the intentions of the parties that the award be final, and because an arbitrator is not ordinarily constrained to decide according to the rule of law, it is the general rule that, ‘The merits of the controversy between the parties are not subject to judicial review.’ [Citations.] More specifically, courts will not review the validity of the arbitrator’s reasoning. [Citations.] Further, a court may not review the sufficiency of the evidence supporting an arbitrator’s award. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 11; SWAB Financial v. E*Trade Securities (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1195.) “Thus, it is the general rule that, with narrow exceptions, an arbitrator’s decision cannot be reviewed for errors of fact or law. In reaffirming this general rule, we recognize there is a risk that the arbitrator will make a mistake.” (Ibid.)
“The only grounds for vacating an award are those which are listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1286.2 (section 1286.2). Absent proof of one of the grounds listed in that section, a court may not vacate an award, even if the arbitrator commits legal or factual errors which appear on the face of the award and which cause substantial injustice.” (Creative Plastering, Inc. v. Hedley Builders, Inc. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1662, 1665.)
The following are the statutory bases for vacating an arbitration award under section 1286.2: “(1) The award was procured by corruption, fraud or other undue means. [¶] (2) There was corruption in any of the arbitrators. [¶] (3) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by misconduct of a neutral arbitrator. [¶] (4) The arbitrators exceeded their powers and the award cannot be corrected without affecting the merits of the decision upon the controversy submitted. [¶] (5) The rights of the party were substantially prejudiced by the refusal of the arbitrators to postpone the hearing upon sufficient cause being shown therefor or by the refusal of the arbitrators to hear evidence material to the controversy or by other conduct of the arbitrators contrary to the provisions of this title. [¶] (6) An arbitrator making the award either: (A) failed to disclose within the time required for disclosure a ground for disqualification of which the arbitrator was then aware; or (B) was subject to disqualification upon grounds specified in Section 1281.91 but failed upon receipt of timely demand to disqualify himself or herself as required by that provision. However, this subdivision does not apply to arbitration proceedings conducted under a collective bargaining agreement between employers and employees or between their respective representatives.”
Our review of the petition reveals the trial court did not err in denying it. Ms. Ozante’s petition does allege that Judge Berg failed to disclose prior medical malpractice litigation with respondents, which is a potential basis for vacating an arbitration award under section 1286.2. However, Ms. Ozante’s petition merely indicates this issue was being investigated, but no evidence was ever produced to support the allegation. Due to the complete failure of proof, there was no basis to vacate the arbitration award on this ground.
Ms. Ozante’s three remaining contentions—that Judge Berg was biased against her, that he misconstrued the evidence, and allowed witnesses to commit perjury—fail for two reasons. First, these allegations challenge the factual findings of the Judge Berg, which is not a permissible basis to vacate an arbitration award. (Moncharch v. Heily & Blase, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 11.) Second, the allegations are not established by the petition and its supporting documents. Moreover, we have no record of the proceedings in the arbitration hearing, and therefore no basis to conclude that Judge Berg engaged in the alleged offending conduct. Nothing in her petition would support a finding that Judge Berg acted improperly in any respect.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.
We concur: TURNER, P. J. MOSK, J.