Limited Types of Arbitration Decisions Have Preclusive Effect

The Oregon Court of Appeals decided on September 5, 2007 in Deanna Barackman v. Anthony Anderson that an arbitration decision determining liability for personal injury protection (PIP) in an automobile accident should have preclusive effect in a subsequent personal injury lawsuit. The question for the court was whether the differences between the arbitration proceeding and a regular trial were so great that it would be unfair to accord the arbitration decision preclusive effect. The court held it sufficient protection when the plaintiff was permitted to cross-examine witnesses, she was represented by counsel, and the impartiality of the arbitration panel was not disputed. As a result, the appeals court precluded the plaintiff from relitigating the arbitrated issues.