in the record suggests what law, if any, the arbitrators selected to decide the issues presented. Instead, plaintiff in effect seeks to overturn the arbitration award on the merits by arguing that the arbitrators improperly applied Colorado law to the facts as he perceives them. We agree with the trial court’s finding that the arbitration award is consistent with Colorado law and the conclusion that “the arbitrators resolved contested factual issues against plaintiff.” B. Plaintiff nevertheless argues that, pursuant to the FAA and federal cases construing it, an arbitration award may be set aside as exceeding the powers of the arbitrators if the award is arbitrary and capricious or manifests a complete departure from the law. See Borden v. Hammers, 941 F.Supp. 1170 (M.D.Fla.1996) (<HOLDING>); Checkrite of San Jose, Inc. v. Checkrite,
holding that a moiety award will be upheld unless it is arbitrary or capricious holding an authority ruling may only be set aside if arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding it is not arbitrary and capricious to request additional evidence of continuing disability recognizing a nonstatutory basis for setting aside an arbitration award if it is arbitrary and capricious