Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 2, No. 1

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Welborn Clinic v. MedQuist, Inc.: Does Broad Interpretation
Call for a Boilerplate Provision?
By Mona Gupta

I. OVERVIEW
Welborn Clinic entered into a contract for medical transcription
services provided by MedQuist, Inc. (MedQuist).1 MedQuist began
performing under the contract on March 23, 1999.2 After several
disputes over the methods MedQuist used in the transcription process,
Welborn initiated dispute resolution proceedings as prescribed in the
contract and requested information regarding MedQuist’s transcription
methods.3 MedQuist failed to cooperate in the proceedings and, in
response, Welborn withheld payment for the transcription services
already rendered.4 Subsequently, MedQuist stopped performing its
transcription services and failed to return any medical records it had in its
possession.5 Welborn then cancelled the contract.6
On May 3, 2000, Welborn filed a complaint in district court
alleging breach of contract, fraud, deceptive trade practices, and
conversion.7 The district court held that all of Welborn’s claims were
subject to the arbitration clause in the contract and granted MedQuist’s
motion to dismiss and compelled arbitration.8 Welborn appealed from
the district court’s decision claiming that MedQuist waived its right to
arbitrate through its conduct and Welborn’s claims are not subject to the
arbitration provisions.9 The United States Court of Appeals for the