[brief] Pca141.  Consequently, the medical providers billed the health insurer—a scenario potentially financially advantageous to Respondent, especially if later required to reimburse the insured for any subsequent ERISA lien, given that health insurance rates are typically lower than ¹ The Procedural History and Statement of Facts are represented together for the Court’s convenience and to avoid repetition. those set by the fee schedule.  Pca1-4.  Initially, Plaintiff sought reimbursement based on the health lien.  Pa12-14.  However, due to the nature of the billing information obtained from the health insurer’s third-party subrogation services provider—and recognizing that the PIP carrier must reimburse medical expenses irrespective of collateral payments—Plaintiff amended the Demand for Arbitration.  Pa15; Pca5-84.  This amendment followed Respondent’s admission that the bills for the medical expenses contained in the lien had been submitted to the PIP carrier and denied.  Pca5-79.  The amendment therefore sought direct reimbursement for the outstanding medical bills in accordance with the fee schedule, adopting the admissions made by Respondent in its own breakdown of what was outstanding.  Pa15.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s medical providers, having received payment from Plaintiff’s health insurer, were not seeking additional reimbursement for the amounts they were still owed under the fee schedule.  As such, Plaintiff’s amendment to the Demand for Arbitration included a stipulation for reimbursement wherein Plaintiff would accept as reimbursement the amounts paid by the health insurer—rather than the higher amounts mandated by the fee schedule—whenever those amounts due under the fee schedule exceeded the amount of the payments made to Plaintiff’s medical providers.  Pa15.  This stipulation resulted in a significant benefit to Respondent after having improperly denied the bills originally.  Despite Plaintiff’s amendment, the arbitrator erroneously ruled that the absence of a detailed payment breakdown in the health insurance lien documentation, or the lack of “[...] EOBs”—a non-party to the case, precluded the application of the fee schedule.  Pca141.  The arbitrator failed to recognize that Plaintiff’s amended Demand for Arbitration called for direct reimbursement of the outstanding medical bills under the fee schedule, not merely the lien. Pa15.  This critical oversight was exacerbated by the presence of clear and undisputed evidence (i.e., Respondent’s own Explanation of Benefits (“EOBs”) and payment ledger) that supported a precise calculation of reimbursement for the unpaid medical bills, including all necessary CPT codes and related data, as documented within Respondent’s own submission. \(^2\)  Pca5-84.  Although the arbitrator acknowledged this evidence and the amendment in the arbitration award, there was a failure to appropriately consider them when rendering the decision, resulting in an award that did not comply with the statutory mandates.  Pca134-143.  This fundamental error in applying the relevant laws to the presented issues and facts was not only overlooked but also perpetuated by the Law Division, which upheld the arbitrator’s flawed decision.  Pa37.  The Law Division ignored the arbitrator’s critical failure to apply the fee \(^2\)  For purposes of the stipulation made by Plaintiff, Respondent’s breakdown, submitted for purposes of calculating reimbursement and which Plaintiff adopted, also accounts for the amounts paid by Plaintiff’s health insurer for each date of service.  Pca5-6; Pca1-4.  schedule in light of Plaintiff’s amended Demand for Arbitration, thereby replicating the same legal error.  1T5:12-6:8; 1T9:16-10:9.  LEGAL ARGUMENT I.