Opinion ID: 2446909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clarification Order

Text: [¶ 20] On application of a party, [1] an arbitrator may modify or correct an award for grounds provided by statute or for the purpose of clarifying the award. 14 M.R.S. § 5935 (2009). Grounds for modification of an award include where [t]here was an evident miscalculation of figures or an evident mistake in the description of any person, thing or property referred to in the award ... [or] [t]he award is imperfect in a matter of form, not affecting the merits of the controversy. 14 M.R.S. § 5939(1)(A), (C) (2009); see also Anderson v. Elliott, 555 A.2d 1042, 1047 (Me.1989) (stating that under section 5939, [e]ither party may ... move to modify or correct the award, but only to rectify a technical error or an `evident miscalculation' or misdescription). [¶ 21] We review for errors of law the court's judgment that the award was within the arbitrator's powers. See Dep't of Corr. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., 2000 ME 51, ¶¶ 8-9, 747 A.2d 592, 594. The burden of proving that the arbitrator exceeded his or her authority lies with the party seeking to vacate the arbitration award. Bennett v. Prawer, 2001 ME 172, ¶ 8, 786 A.2d 605, 608. [¶ 22] Here, the arbitrator's order of December 9, 2009, was a permissible clarification of the award, correcting a computational error. The arbitrator's intended formula was clear from the language of the original award, but because of the arbitrator's misconception that referral fees had not yet been deducted from the total fee amounts, his conclusion that the calculation equals $104,500 was in error. Correction of this statement was not a reopening of the merits of the claim, and the court did not err in holding that the amendment was within the arbitrator's authority. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.