Beckley Oncology Associates v. Rami Abumasmah, 993 F.3d 261

BOA hired Dr. Rami Abumasmah under a written employment agreement containing an arbitration clause that stated the arbitrator’s decision “shall be final and conclusive and enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction without any right of judicial review or appeal.”
The agreement set an express incentive-bonus formula for the initial two-year term and stated bonus terms for later renewals were subject to renegotiation.
Abumasmah left BOA in 2015; he claimed an unpaid incentive bonus for his third year (2014–15) based on earlier formulas and requested arbitration. BOA disputed entitlement and accounting.
The arbitrator awarded Abumasmah $167,030 (approximately 2.5% of gross revenue that he had generated) to avoid BOA’s unjust enrichment.
BOA sought to vacate the award in district court, arguing the arbitration clause’s waiver of judicial/appellate review was unenforceable; the district court held the prohibition on judicial review unenforceable but nonetheless confirmed the award on the merits.
On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court held the parties’ waiver of appellate review was enforceable and dismissed BOA’s appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (BOA)	Defendant's Argument (Abumasmah)	Held
Whether a contract can waive appellate review of a district court’s confirmation/vacatur of an arbitration award	Waiver is unenforceable because the FAA and due-process principles require judicial review of arbitral awards; reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent	Parties may validly waive appellate rights; appellate waiver reduces litigation and furthers FAA’s efficiency goals	Appellate-waiver enforceable; appeal dismissed
Whether parties can contractually eliminate all judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision	The clause purports to bar all judicial review, which BOA says is prohibited	Even if all-review waiver is invalid, severability permits enforcement of the appellate-waiver portion	All-review waivers may be invalid, but severability upheld appellate-waiver; enforceable
Proper scope of judicial review of an arbitration award (merits review)	BOA sought merits reversal of the award	Abumasmah argued review is extremely limited; district court applied narrow standards and found no basis to vacate	Federal review is narrowly circumscribed; district court’s confirmation did not show arbitrator ignored law; award stands

MACTEC, Inc. v. Gorelick, 427 F.3d 821 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholding contractual waiver of appellate review of district-court confirmation/vacatur of arbitration award)
In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Litig., 737 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 2013) (held that parties may not eliminate all judicial review of arbitration awards)
Cotton Yarn Antitrust Litig., 505 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2007) (unenforceable arbitration provisions are severable when they do not go to the essence of the bargain)
Apex Plumbing Supply, Inc. v. U.S. Supply Co., Inc., 142 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 1998) (judicial review of arbitration awards is among the narrowest known at law)
Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008) (limits on expanding judicial review of arbitration awards under the FAA)