Dr. Nestor Martinez; NM Health Services-North, P.A.; Pain & Recovery Clinic of North Houston; and Caguas Casualty Corp. v. Capstone Associated Services, Ltd.; Capstone Associated Services (Wyoming), Limited Partnership; and Capstone Insurance Management, Ltd.

Summary

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of Capstone entities against Dr. Nestor Martinez, related healthcare entities, and Caguas Casualty Corp. The court rejected challenges based on the arbitrator’s alleged evident partiality, concluding that the disclosures and record did not establish a basis for vacatur. The court also addressed arguments concerning the existence and enforceability of the arbitration agreement and the arbitrator’s authority.

Holdings

1. The record did not establish evident partiality warranting vacatur because it did not show that the arbitrator knew of or failed to disclose the alleged broader relationships, did not show business solicitation or a material financial interest, and showed that the disclosed relationships were accurately disclosed or trivial.
2. Appellants waived their argument that the arbitration provisions contained in enclosures were not incorporated into the agreements because they did not present that ground for vacatur to the trial court.
3. Appellants failed to establish that the 2015 amendment was procedurally or substantively unconscionable and therefore failed to show that it was unenforceable.
4. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority because the 2015 amendment broadly covered disputes involving the law firm's affiliates, and appellants did not show that the claims asserted by the appellees fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the arbitration award should be vacated because the arbitrator exhibited evident partiality by failing to disclose prior arbitrations, professional relationships, alleged business relationships, and an earlier campaign contribution and fundraiser.
2. Whether appellants preserved their argument that the arbitration provisions were not incorporated into the agreements.
3. Whether the 2015 arbitration amendment was procedurally or substantively unconscionable and unenforceable.
4. Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by issuing awards to appellees that appellants contended were not parties to the agreements or arbitration provisions.

Disposition

affirmed