Court Opinion

ID: 9746881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:42:14.369122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.928455
License: Public Domain

SCHREIBER, J.,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Chief Justice except with respect to the stated policy generally limiting the scope of review of Fee Arbitration Committees to disqualification of a Committee member because of partiality, failure to comply with the procedural requirements of R. 1:20A, e. g., by denying the issuance of a subpoena compelling the attendance of witnesses or production of documents at a party’s request, or actual fraud on the part of a Committee member.
My differences arise for two reasons. First, I believe that the subject matter of this exception is such that the Court should have the benefit of the thinking of the bar, the public and our Civil Practice Committee before determining the appropriate extent of review of decisions of Fee Arbitration Committees. Second, it seems to me that review is more deservedly warranted in certain situations other than those predicated on some “procedural grounds.” Ante at 598. Thus, for example, if a decision were wholly without evidentiary support, I would opt for review of that decision, which as a matter of law could not be sustained. In any event I am of the opinion that, after benefiting from the input of the public and the bar, further consideration should be given to the entire matter.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices SULLIVAN, PASHMAN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER and POLLOCK — 7.
For reversal —None.