Arbitrator Selection Process
As is stated in Rule 3.2(g), the Administrator appoints the candidate with the lowest combined score from the parties’ Ranking Sheets (see Illustration 1). In the event of a tie, the Administrator appoints the candidate ranked most similarly by the parties (see Illustration 2). If this tie-breaking procedure fails to produce a winner, the Administrator appoints the candidate whose last name comes first in alphabetical order if the case number is odd, and in reverse alphabetical order if the case number is even (see Illustration 3).
Illustration 1: Lowest Combined Score
Party A’s rankings are:
1. Smith
2. Jones
3. Johnson
4. Brown
5. Murphy
Party B’s rankings are:
1. Johnson
2. Smith
3. Murphy
4. Jones
5. Brown
Smith has the lowest combined score (2+1=3) and is therefore appointed as the arbitrator.
Illustration 2: Most Similar Rankings
Party A’s rankings are:
1. Jones
2. Smith
3. Johnson
4. Brown
5. Murphy
Party B’s rankings are:
1. Murphy
2. Smith
3. Jones
4. Johnson
5. Smith
Both Jones and Smith have the lowest combined score of three (3). Because there is no difference between Smith’s scores (2-2=0) and a two (2) point difference between Jones’s scores (3-1=2), Smith is appointed.
Illustration 3: Alphabetical Order
Party A’s rankings are:
1. Jones
2. Smith
3. Johnson
4. Brown
5. Murphy
Party B’s rankings are:
1. Smith
2. Jones
3. Brown
4. Johnson
5. Murphy
Both Jones and Smith have the lowest combined score of four (4) and the difference between their rankings is the same (one (1)). Jones will be selected if the case number is odd; Smith will be selected if the case number is even.
MULTI-PARTY CASES
To provide each side equal input into the selection of an arbitrator, the Administrator averages the rankings of parties with common interests into a single score (see Illustration 1). If Claimants or Respondents have conflicting interests, their scores are weighted separately (see Illustration 2).
Illustration 1: Common Interests
General Hospital claims Dr. Young and Dr. Restless violated their recruiting agreement when they established Group Practice with three other physicians. The parties’ rankings are:
General Hospital
1. Murphy
2. Johnson
3. Brown
4. Jones
5. Smith
Dr. Young
1. Smith
2. Brown
3. Johnson
4. Jones
5. Murphy
Dr. Restless
1. Smith
2. Murphy
3. Brown
4. Johnson
5. Jones
Because Dr. Young and Dr. Restless are similarly situated, their scores are averaged into one:
Smith 1
Brown 2.5
Johnson 3.5
Murphy 3.5
Jones 4.5
Murphy has the lowest combined score (1 + 3.5) and is appointed as the arbitrator.
Illustration 2: Competing Interests
Dr. Young seeks compensation for unpaid bills from General Hospital and Medical Insurance for surgeries performed at General Hospital. Medical Insurance refused to pay because General Hospital provided false and incomplete information. General Hospital denies these allegations.
The parties’ rankings are:
Dr. Young
1. Murphy
2. Johnson
3. Brown
4. Jones
5. Smith
General Hospital
1. Smith
2. Brown
3. Johnson
4. Jones
5. Murphy
Medical Insurance
1. Smith
2. Murphy
3. Brown
4. Johnson
5. Jones
Because all three parties are at odds with each other, their rankings receive equal weight. Smith has the lowest combined score (5 + 1 + 1) and is appointed as the arbitrator.