Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, under the limited judicial review allowed for decisions from binding arbitration, the sole question is whether the arbitrator arguably interpreted the parties' contract, not whether the arbitrator erred.
John Ivan Sutter, a pediatrician, provided medical services to Oxford Health Plans's insurance customers under a fee-for-services contract that required binding arbitration of contractual disputes. He nonetheless filed a proposed class action in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging that Oxford failed to fully and promptly pay him and other physicians with similar Oxford contracts. On OxfordâÂÂs motion, the court compelled arbitration. The parties agreed that the arbitrator should decide whether their contract authorized class arbitration, and he concluded that it did. Oxford filed a motion in federal court to vacate the arbitratorâÂÂs decision, claiming that he had "exceeded [his] powers" under ç10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The federal district court denied the motion, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 10, 2013.