A Florida appellate court affirmed a denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute between a physician and a hospital operator because there was no nexus between the physician's allegations against the hospital operator and the parties' contract containing an arbitration agreement.

In Health First, Inc. v. Hynes, No. 5D07-3370, 2008 WL 2309014 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 6, 2008), Hynes, a physician, entered into a "participating group agreement" with a clinic. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Hynes later sued Health First (Health) for a variety of claims, including monopoly, deceptive and unfair trade practices, and tortious interference with business relations. Health moved to compel arbitration.

The trial court granted the motion to arbitrate the tortious interference claim, but denied the motion with respect to the other claims. The trial court held that under Florida law, there was an insufficient nexus between those allegations and the participating group agreement. The court reasoned that Hynes was not trying to enforce the agreement, and any mention of the agreement in the complaint was only made as an example of anti-competitive conduct and unfair trade practices.

On appeal, the Court affirmed the trial court's holding that there was no nexus between the claims for monopoly and unfair trade practices and the arbitration agreement. Health argued that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, not Florida's nexus test, because the agreement encompassed the treatment of Medicare patients and therefore implicated interstate commerce. However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that there was no evidence that Hynes's employer ever received payment from Medicare.

In regard to the monopoly claims, the Court held that the participating group agreement was only mentioned as an example of Health's anti-competitive behaviors, and that the other claims for misconduct were based on Health's duties owed to the public under common law or public policy. Thus, there was no nexus between Hynes's monopoly claim and the participating group agreement.

Similarly, the Court held that the agreement was only one example of Health's alleged violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and that the unfair trade claims were brought as potential class actions on behalf of employers incorporated in or under the laws of Florida. Thus, there was no nexus between those claims and Hynes's participating group agreement.

Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's holding that compelled arbitration of the tortious interference claim but not the monopoly and unfair trade practice claims.