U.S. Steel Mining Co., L.L.C. v. Wilson Downhole Serv., No. 02:00CV1758, 2006 WL 2869535 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 5, 2006) (enforcing arbitral award against challenge that the arbitrator improperly relied on fraudulent ex parte information conveyed during mediation in choosing among the parties' last offers, noting that the parties' amended arbitration agreement stated that the arbitrator "may rely on information which he deems relevant, whether obtained in ex parte communication or otherwise").
U.S. Steel Video
Kline v. Berg Drywall, Inc., 685 N.W.2d 12 (Minn. 2004) (where a three stage ADR process contained in a collective bargaining agreement excludes legal counsel from the stage one facilitation and limits legal counsel from communicating directly with the mediator in stage two, the resulting diminution of benefits impermissibly compromises employees' entitlement to workers' compensation and warrants grant of a new arbitration hearing to claimant denied benefits for work-related injury).
Quote from the Court's Majority Opinion: "An injured worker is immediately disadvantaged, particularly when a trained insurance claims adjuster or an employer with legal training is allowed to participate in a facilitation that can lead to the termination of benefits." Quote from the Court's Dissenting Opinion: "Parties may waive their right to counsel in virtually all legal settings, including those having more serious ramifications than a workers' compensation claim. By virtue of the adoption of the rules of the Fund in the collective bargaining agreement, and the provision in the rules that counsel cannot be present at the facilitation, Kline has waived the right to have counsel present at that stage".[b]ecause Kline's waiver is part of a private agreement that created the ADR systems, there is no 'state action' and due process issues cannot arise."
In re Marriage of Craze, 133 Wash. App. 1023 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (rejecting husband's argument that personal service of summons and petition of divorce should be deemed void because served at a mediation he was invited to from out of state, where husband and his counsel agreed to participate knowing wife wanted to dissolve the marriage in that state; that he had already been served under the state's long arm statute; and that she might serve him again in person).
In re Marriage of Craze video
Emerson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 5877-00, 2003 WL 1392574 (U.S. Tax Ct., March 20, 2003) (affirming IRS refusal to consider portion of mediated settlement of contract/intellectual property dispute non-taxable compensation for injuries or personal illness, where there was no mention during mediation of a claim for personal injuries, other than mediator's suggestion, subsequently acted on by the parties, to "add a personal injury claim to the suit as a vehicle to reach settlement"; rejecting IRS accuracy-related penalty for improperly excluding settlement proceeds as received on account of physical injury or sickness, since taxpayer had relied to his detriment on the suggestion of the mediator and his own attorney to include a claim for personal injury).