The arbitrator completes and files an annual No-Fault Arbitrator Recertification form which certifies that:
The rules regarding bias and conflict of interest as set forth in subdivision (b) remain applicable to arbitrators who are recertified under this subdivision (c).
Minn. No-Fault. Compre. Colli. Ins. R. 10
Comment - 2008
In order to maintain a well-qualified and expert panel of arbitrators, as well as keep a sufficient number of arbitrators from outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the Committee finds it necessary to allow for a second basis upon which to qualify as a No-Fault Arbitrator. These secondary qualifications allow seasoned arbitrators to remain on the panel while not penalizing those who choose to slow down their practice. It also allows arbitrators in smaller communities to meet the level of expertise we require who, because of the nature of their practice, may not meet the percentage requirement of Section (a).
Committee Comment - 2010 Amendment
In recent years, there have been inconsistencies in district court rulings and in determinations by the Standing Committee as to what constitutes a conflict of interest for no-fault arbitrators. In response, the Standing Committee wishes to clarify what constitutes a conflict of interest for both respondents' and claimants' attorneys. The Committee recognizes that the Amendments will limit the number of arbitrators, especially in certain out state areas. But the Amendments are necessary to clarify the law and stem the tide of parties seeking removal of arbitrators in the district court. The Amendments also establish, for the first time, that a conflict exists if an arbitrator who is to rule on a disputed bill for a medical provider is aware that the provider has made referrals to the arbitrator within the last year.
Standing Committee Comments (2015)
The conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements in Rule 10 have been broadened to promote accountability and fairness. To ensure prompt and inexpensive arbitration with the limited number of available no-fault arbitrators, the disclosure requirements are not as broad as the requirements of the Uniform Arbitration Act. See Minnesota Statutes, section 572B.12, paragraph (a).
Mandatory no-fault arbitration is different from voluntary arbitration governed by the Uniform Arbitration Act. No-fault arbitration is intended to promptly resolve relatively small claims for insurance coverage. See Rule 1 and Minnesota Statutes, section 65B.42. Unlike arbitrators appointed under the Uniform Arbitration Act, no-fault arbitrators are approved by the Standing Committee and the Supreme Court, based on their willingness and experience with no-fault matters. This necessarily limits the number of no-fault arbitrators.
A change is made in Rule 10(a) to promote consistency between 10(a) and 10(c) in the CLE requirement.
The removal of the phrase, "is aware," in Rule 10(b), adds a greater responsibility to ensure that a complete disclosure is made, as well as is now prohibited as a financial conflict.
The inclusion of "licensure" in Rule 10(c) provides a clear definition of what constitutes a retired arbitrator and when the five-year limit in Rule 10(c) begins to run.