Dallas COA Orders Arbitration Based on Electronic Signature and Click Through User Agreement
This post has been viewed 3,086 times.
Texas’ Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas has ordered a health care liability lawsuit to arbitration based on an online click through agreement and a financial responsibility contract that contained an agreement to arbitrate. In Athas Health LLC d/b/a North American Spine v. Melody Trevithick et al., No. 05-16-00219-CV (Tex. App – Dallas, February 17, 2017), a man, Paul Trevithick, underwent spinal surgery at a Dallas healthcare facility that was owned by Athas Health. Prior to securing treatment, Trevithick completed detailed paperwork and requested an MRI via Athas Health’s website.
During the surgical procedure, Trevithick’s surgeon unintentionally punctured the dural membrane surrounding his spine. About two weeks after the surgery, Trevithick unfortunately passed away as a result of Group B Strep Meningitis. Following the man’s death, Trevithick’s surviving spouse filed a health care liability lawsuit against Athas Health.
In response to the wife’s lawsuit, Athas Health filed two separate motions to compel the case to arbitration. The first motion claimed Trevithick agreed to arbitrate all claims against Athas Health when he checked a box stating “I accept the Privacy Policy and User Agreement” on the company’s website. In its second motion, the company argued Trevithick agreed to arbitration based on the user agreement and an electronically signed financial responsibility contract regarding payment for medical services received from Athas Health. After both motions were denied, Athas Health filed two interlocutory appeals with Texas’ Fifth District Court of Appeals in Dallas.
The Dallas court first consolidated the two appeals before examining the facts of the case. The court then addressed “whether arbitration was required by the arbitration clause in the financial agreement.” According to the court, neither party asserted that the arbitration clause was ambiguous, nor did the parties dispute that Trevithick’s electronic signature appeared on the financial agreement. In addition, the Court of Appeals stated neither party claimed “fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation was involved in his signing of the agreement.”
Read original articleTags:
