award was meant to be compensatory. In so deciding, the hearing justice declined to accept evidence “as to what the arbitrator considered or what he decided.” Although § 10-3-14 requires the reviewing court to modify the award as necessary and does not expressly limit the hearing justice’s scope of review, under the circumstances of this case, the remand to the arbitrator was appropriate, given the insufficient evidence before the April 5, 1995 hearing justice regarding the rationale for the punitive damages award. There was neither a transcript of the arbitration proceeding, nor was an explanation of the arbitrator’s reasoning available for the justice’s examination. See Purvis Systems, Inc., 788 A.2d at 1118, and Westminster Construction Corp., 119 R.I. at 209-10, 376 A.2d at 710 (<HOLDING>). The April 5, 1995 hearing justice had before
holding that harm analysis should not be conducted when none of the explanations required by section 5403b are given holding that judicial review of arbitration awards is narrow in scope recognizing such a ground for judicial review of arbitration awards in this circuit holding that explanations of arbitration awards are not required holding that minnesotas arbitration statutes govern appraiser decisions and appraisal awards are to be treated as arbitration awards