The footnote re the "Clearly Erroneous" standards in the appeals section should be revised to state the following standards since the existing references are way too vague and subjective, making it difficult for panelists to know what their obligations are on ruling and on appeal considersation. We should instead be focused on a clearly erroneous standard that is more specific: Clearly erroneous: leave an Objection ruling in place unless (1) the panel failed to follow the appropriate procedures or (2) failed to consider/solicit necessary material evidence or information. Anne E. Aikman-Scalese Of Counsel 520.629.4428 office 520.879.4725 fax AAikman@lrrc.com<mailto:AAikman@lrrc.com> _____________________________ [cid:image002.png@01D616F6.B4350DB0] Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000 Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611 lrrc.com<http://lrrc.com/> [cid:image003.jpg@01D616F6.B4350DB0] Because what matters to you, matters to us.(tm) ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.