Athas Health, LLC D/B/A North American Spine v. Melody Trevithick, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Paul Trevithick, and Damon Trevithick and Sedric Trevithick, Individually, 05-16-00219-CV

Paul Trevithick (Minnesota resident) consulted Athas Health (d/b/a North American Spine) online for MRI review and treatment; underwent two spinal surgeries by Dr. Kelly Will; complications from the second surgery led to infection and death.
Appellees (Trevithick’s estate and family) sued Athas and Dr. Will for health‑care liability claims, alleging negligent MRI review, improper referrals, and surgical errors; Athas answered and contested arbitration.
Athas filed two motions to compel arbitration: first based on a website "user agreement" checkbox, second based on an electronic financial agreement containing a broad arbitration clause naming Athas and specifying AAA/Dallas and FAA applicability.
Trial court denied both motions; Athas appealed interlocutorily and consolidated appeals. The court reviewed enforceability, scope of the arbitration clause, and alleged waiver by Athas.
The Court of Appeals concluded Athas could enforce the financial‑agreement arbitration clause (as party or third‑party beneficiary), the claims fell within its broad scope, and Athas had not waived arbitration.
Court reversed denial of the second motion, rendered judgment compelling arbitration of all claims and defenses, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the financial agreement created an enforceable arbitration agreement between Trevithick and Athas	Agreement named Red River Spine/Dr. Will at top; Trevithick didn’t contract with Athas	Athas sent, received, and was identified in the arbitration clause; Athas is a party or third‑party beneficiary	Athas may enforce the arbitration clause (party or third‑party beneficiary)
Whether appellees’ claims fall within the arbitration clause’s scope	Billing language limits Athas’s role to administrative/billing services, so health‑care claims are excluded	Clause is broad and expressly covers any cause of action arising from services Athas provided relating to medical treatment	Claims fall squarely within the broad arbitration clause
Whether Athas waived its right to arbitrate by litigating in court	Appellees contend Athas invoked judicial process and allowed discovery, causing prejudice	Athas moved to compel arbitration early, challenged expert report timely, sought stays, and did not take dispositive litigation positions	No waiver; Athas did not substantially invoke judicial process to its detriment
Whether trial court’s denial was reversible	Trial court refused to compel arbitration despite clause and lack of waiver	Athas sought reversal and arbitration enforcement	Court reversed and rendered judgment compelling arbitration; remanded for further proceedings

In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (standards for appellate review of arbitration denial)
In re Rubiola, 334 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. 2011) (party seeking arbitration must show valid clause and scope; state contract law governs validity)
In re Palm Harbor Homes, 195 S.W.3d 672 (Tex. 2006) (electronic signature and non‑assertion of fraud in signing)
Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 341 S.W.3d 323 (Tex. 2011) (determining third‑party beneficiary intent by contract language)
Sherer v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 548 F.3d 379 (5th Cir. 2008) (non‑signatory may enforce arbitration if agreement benefits them)
Venture Cotton Co‑op. v. Freeman, 435 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. 2014) (burden shift to nonmovant to prove affirmative defenses to arbitration)
G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (waiver of arbitration is a question of law when facts undisputed)
RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. 2016) (party asserting waiver bears heavy burden; factors for waiver analysis)
Prudential Secs. Inc. v. Marshall, 909 S.W.2d 896 (Tex. 1995) (presumption against waiver of arbitration rights)
Ascendant Anesthesia PLLC v. Abazi, 348 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (broad arbitration clauses are construed to favor arbitration)