If the arbitration commission arrives upon a win/loss ratio, then arbitration fees shall be borne by both Parties according to the agreed upon win/loss ratio. If no decision on arbitration fees is arrived upon, then both Parties shall be responsible for these fees according to their respective win/loss ratio.

++It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to be honest.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs 59 mins (2005-03-18 16:04:13 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The argument attorneys raise against arbitration is that overall, the win:loss ratio for the defendant tends to be higher with a jury trial versus in arbitration hearings. However, that may be accounted for by the fact that difficult cases, which are likely to result in a highly damaging jury decision against the physician, are often settled out of court. In contrast, hard cases are heard more often in arbitration as the defendant\'s attorney recognizes the rationality of the arbitrator and the likelihood that the judgment will be reasonable.

\"The win:loss ratio may be higher in front of a jury, but I believe that is because juries are hearing easier cases while the hard ones are settled for premium dollars before they come to trial. A difficult case heard in front of a jury can result in a \'runaway\' verdict against the physician, exceeding that individual\'s malpractice policy limits. We may lose relatively more cases in arbitration, but the settlements skew in our favor,\" Zuetel noted.
http://www.cosmeticsurgerytimes.com/cosmeticsurgerytimes/art...