Health First, Inc. v. Hynes
988 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
A corporation claimed that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C.S. § 2, should have applied to a suit brought against it by a physician alleging 12 counts, including, among others, monopolization of the hospital market, restraint of trade, unfair competition, and tortious interference with business relationships. The corporation argued that the Act applied because a participating group agreement (“agreement”) entered into by the physician encompassed the treatment of Medicare patients, thus satisfying the Act’s interstate commerce requirement. The appellate court, however, found that no evidence was presented regarding the receipt of payments from Medicare. The trial court properly found that there was no nexus between the allegations in the first six counts of the complaint and the agreement. The agreement was only mentioned by the doctor as an example of the corporation's anti-competitive, deceptive, and monopolistic behaviors. Other claims of misconduct contained in those counts were based on common law or public policy. These claims did not set forth a nexus between the doctor and the agreement and in turn, no claims involving interstate commerce. The next five counts, alleging violations of § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat., were brought as potential class actions on behalf of certain specific employers. As the trial court found, the agreement was only one example of the corporation's alleged violation of the statute. None of these allegations demonstrated a nexus between the doctor and the agreement. Therefore, the agreement could not be utilized to trigger arbitration.