In Progressive Plumbing, Inc. v. ABCO Builders, Inc. , 281 Ga. App. 696 637 SE2d 92 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of a superior court that, because an arbitration panel had shown a manifest disregard for the law, the arbitration award in favor of Progressive Plumbing, Inc. had to be vacated. We granted certiorari to consider the extent to which a superior court has authority to vacate an arbitrator’s award in the absence of a transcript of the underlying arbitration hearing. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Because our state arbitration code closely tracks federal arbitration law, we look to federal cases for guidance in construing our own statutes. Progressive Data Systems, Inc. v. Jefferson Randolph Corporation , 275 Ga. 420 568 SE2d 474 2002. Our arbitration code was designed to preserve and ensure the efficacy and expediency of arbitration awards. As a result, judicial review of an arbitration award is strictly limited to five statutory grounds set forth in OCGA § 9-9-13 b. Id. See also, Malice v. Coloplast Corp. , 278 Ga. App. 395 629 SE2d 95 2006. An appellate court will not consider the sufficiency of the evidence underlying an arbitrator’s award. Greene v. Hundley , 266 Ga. 592 3 468 SE2d 350 1996.
At issue in this case is the fifth ground for review of an arbitrator’s award, OCGA § 9-9-13 b 5. This ground provides that an arbitrator’s award may be vacated if it can be shown that the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the proper law applicable to the case before him. This disregard must be both evident and intentional. “An arbitration board that incorrectly interprets the law has not manifestly disregarded it. It has simply made a legal mistake. To manifestly disregard the law, one must be conscious of the law and deliberately ignore it.” Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc. , 128 F3d 1456, 1461 11th Cir. 1997.