M.D. Seema L. Mishra v. Doctors Hosp. of Augusta ( 2009 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Dec. 03, 2009
No. 09-12548 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00101-CV-1-DHB-WLB
M. D. SEEMA L. MISHRA,
on her own behalf, individually, and
on behalf of her patients, both private
pay and those receiving Medicaid or
Medicare from the federal government
or financial assistance for health care
from the State of South Carolina,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF AUGUSTA, LLC,
and its parent, The Corporation of America
(sic, Healthcare Corporation HCA, Inc.,
privately and under color of law of America),
Defendants-Cross-
Claimant-Appellees,
THE CENTER FOR PRIMARY CARE,
Defendant-Cross-
Defendant-Appellee,
JIM LARSON, GALEN HOLDCO, LLC,
privately and under color of law, et al.
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 3, 2009)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from the district court’s order compelling arbitration and
subsequently confirming the arbitrator’s award of damages, fees and costs against
plaintiff for violating her recruitment agreement with defendants. We have
reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record excerpts and conclude that the district
court did not err in compelling arbitration or in affirming the arbitration award.
Plaintiff did not substantiate her denial of the arbitration contract with
evidence sufficient to made the denial colorable. Chastain v. Robinson-Humphrey
Co., 957 F.2d 851, 855 (1th Cir. 1985). Nor did she demonstrate that the
subsequent award falls into those narrow circumstances where we are authorized to
set it aside. See First Options of Chicago, Inc., v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 942
(1995). She has shown neither fraud, partiality, misconduct nor malfeasance on
the part of the arbitrator. Nor has she demonstrated that the award was arbitrary,
violative of public policy or entered in manifest disregard of the law. See Scott v.
2
Prudential Sec. Inc., 141 F.3d 1007, 1017 (11th Cir. 1998). In the absence of such
showings, we are without authority to vacate the award.
Accordingly, the district court’s Order affirming the arbitrator’s award and
judgment for defendants is hereby
AFFIRMED.
3