Opinion ID: 6128
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Finality of the arbitration award

Text: 21 The district court found that the panel failed to decide EBM's claims of fraud and DTPA violations and Atlantic's counterclaim for the balance due under the contract. We assume, arguendo, that review of these findings is for clear error. 7 Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 286, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1789, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). 22 We determine that the arbitration panel did consider and decide all the issues presented. 8 Although the broadly stated form of the arbitration award does not expressly reveal the panel's decisions on each of the issues submitted, it is clear from the testimony of the arbitrators that the panel members considered and decided all of the issues. 23 Mr. Cunningham, Atlantic's arbitrator, and Mr. Schwartz, the neutral member of the panel, testified unequivocally that all issues were decided, specifically the issues of fraud, DTPA, and Atlantic's counterclaim. 9 24 The trial testimony of EBM's arbitrator, Mr. Herman, is contradictory. He claimed in a general manner that the panel did not consider these issues, but his more specific testimony, describing the panel deliberations, was that the panel did address and decide the fraud and DTPA claims. 10 Mr. Herman was obviously frustrated with the manner in which some of these issues were discussed and clearly disappointed with the results of the arbitration proceedings. 11 His own unretracted admissions that these issues were discussed, however, belies EBM's claim that the panel's ruling did not address all the issues presented. 25 In light of the fact that each of the three arbitrators admitted that the issues were considered, the district court's finding that not all the issues had been discussed by the panel was clearly erroneous.