had simply taken the first step in the ultimate disposition of the dispute between the parties. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Beaumont v. Callaway, 597 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1980, writ ref'd); see also Elm Creek, 940 S.W.2d at 150. Because an interlocutory order may only be appealed when authorized by statute and because there is no such authority for the appeal of an order compelling arbitration, we must follow the holdings of this and other courts in concluding that an order compelling arbitration is an unappealable interlocutory order. See Elm Creek, 940 S.W.2d at 150 (concluding court of appeals had no jurisdiction over interlocutory order compelling arbitration); Gathe v. Cigna Healthplan of Texas, Inc., 879 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (<HOLDING>); Bethke v. Polyco, Inc., 730 S.W.2d 431, 434
holding that an order compelling arbitration is not immediately appealable because it is not final and because it is not listed in the uaa appeals provision holding that orders compelling arbitration are not appealable not because of the uaa appeals provision but because it has been definitely settled by the supreme court of this state that an order compelling arbitration is not final and therefore is not appealable holding that an order compelling arbitration in an independent proceeding is appealable as a final order because in that context the order compelling arbitration resolves the sole issue before the court holding that an order compelling arbitration is not appealable because it is not listed in the uaa statute and because it is not final holding order compelling arbitration is unappealable