Dr$.$ Webber was sued by a patient for medical malpractice. The patient alleges Dr$.$ Webber removed more organs than she needed to during a surgical procedure. After the initial pleadings stage of the lawsuit, the parties engaged in significant discovery. Through discovery, documents were exchanged showing exactly what took place during the surgical procedure and which organs were removed. The parties factually agree as to exactly what Dr$.$ Webber did during the surgical procedure and what organs were removed, their only disagreement is their opinions as to whether Dr$.$ Webber's decision to remove a particular organ was the "correct" decision from a medical standpoint. The patient believes Dr$.$ Webber made a medical mistake and should have performed the surgical procedure without removing as many organs as she did. In reality, Dr$.$ Webber did everything correct from a medical or legal standpoint, as she performed the surgical procedure exactly as it should have been done by any medical professional.

If this case were proceeding in an arbitration hearing instead of a lawsuit, which of the possibilities below would be the most likely result?

The arbitrator would rule in Dr$.$ Webber's favor even if the patient disagreed with the decisiq

The arbitration hearing would include a jury trial and the arbitrator would enter a final and binding decision on the parties in accordance with whatever resolution the jury decided.

Regardless of whether the arbitrator ruled in favor of the patient or Dr$.$ Webber, a judge would have to approve the decision before it became final and binding on the parties

The arbitrator's decision would become public record and get published in a collection of judicial opinions.

The arbitrator would only issue a decision if Dr$.$ Webber and the patient both agreed with the proposed decision.