UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1647
WEIRTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
QHR INTENSIVE RESOURCES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00131-FPS)
Submitted: March 3, 2017 Decided: March 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela A. Bresnahan, VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP,
Washington, D.C.; Peter A. Lusenhop, Mitchell A. Tobias, VORYS,
SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP, Columbus, Ohio; Anthony Cillo,
COHEN & GRIGSBY, PC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Athanasios Basdekis, BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP, Charleston, West
Virginia; Ellis Reed-Hill Lesemann, LESEMANN & ASSOCIATES LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Weirton Medical Center, Inc., appeals from the district
court’s order denying its motion to vacate a $1,486,903.11
arbitration award entered in favor of QHR Intensive Resources,
LLC (“QIR”), confirming the award, and dismissing the complaint.
We affirm.
“This court reviews de novo the district court’s denial of
a motion to vacate an arbitration award.” Brown & Pipkins, LLC
v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 846 F.3d 716, 723 (4th Cir. 2017)
(brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Generally,
“judicial review of an arbitration award in federal court is
severely circumscribed and among the narrowest known at law.”
Jones v. Dancel, 792 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal
quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 591 (2015).
As such, “a court must confirm an arbitration award unless a
party to the arbitration demonstrates that the award should be
vacated under one of . . . four enumerated grounds” in 9 U.S.C.
§ 10 (2012). Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). As
pertinent here, an arbitration award may be vacated if it “was
procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.” 9 U.S.C.
§ 10(a)(1). To establish that an arbitration award was procured
by undue means, the party seeking vacatur typically must
demonstrate “that the fraud or corruption was (1) not
discoverable upon the exercise of due diligence prior to the
2
arbitration, (2) materially related to an issue in the
arbitration, and (3) established by clear and convincing
evidence.” MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 610
F.3d 849, 858 (4th Cir. 2010) (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
QIR, a consulting firm, contracted with Weirton to provide
various hospital management services aimed at improving
Weirton’s financial health. Within two years, Weirton
terminated the agreement and QIR commenced arbitration
proceedings. Among those to testify at the arbitration hearing
were four interim officers whom QIR had selected for Weirton as
part of QIR’s obligations under the agreement. As a result of
QIR’s posthearing motion for attorney’s fees and costs, Weirton
discovered that these witnesses had entered into compensation
agreements with QIR. Weirton claims that these witnesses
actively concealed the existence of these agreements, and that
such misconduct impacted the outcome of the arbitration.
We agree with the district court that none of the
witnesses’ testimony relied on by Weirton constituted clear and
convincing evidence of undue means. Moreover, Weirton had the
opportunity to question these witnesses at the arbitration
hearing and failed to inquire as to the existence of any
compensation arrangements made with QIR. Weirton cannot
3
complain that these witnesses tried to conceal something that it
never sought to discover.
Finally, Weirton has not demonstrated a causal connection
between the witnesses’ testimony and the result of the
arbitration. MCI Constructors, 610 F.3d at 858-59 & n.6. While
Weirton speculates that the arbitrator would have construed a
contested contractual provision differently had he been aware of
the witnesses’ allegedly false or misleading testimony, the
arbitrator’s report makes clear that he found this to be an
unambiguous provision that did not require additional evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4