There is data that supports claims of improved case processing, less expense, more informality while maintaining a just resolution. Arbitration is more expeditious, has no bias for either party, is non-combative, and provides for privacy. The data suggests that it affords some predictability, avoids unnecessary appeals, and makes awards on merits not on compromise. Decisions can be final and binding but are not precedent setting. Arbitration expedites resolutions, utilizes independent third party decision makers, and offers the client freedom of choice.
Arbitration can function with large and even complex cases.
There is no empirical support for a belief that when an expert panel is used there is an inherent bias. The panel decisions were unanimous in all but two cases. They found that the professional members did not unduly influence the decisions. The professional members tended to interpret and assist the panel in understanding technical matters. The decisions were consistent with the state tort and malpractice law.