CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

This case addresses whether disputes concerning workers' compensation insurance Payment Agreements should be submitted to arbitration. The central question is if the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in connection with California Insurance Code § 11658, which mandates the filing of insurance documents. The Court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not activated because the FAA's application would not 'invalidate, impair, or supersede' California Insurance Code § 11658, given that California law at the time did not regulate arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Consequently, the FAA governs the Payment Agreements. Furthermore, under FAA principles of severability, the enforceability of the Payment Agreements and their arbitration clauses, including questions of arbitrability, must be resolved through arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)McCarran-Ferguson ActInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance Code § 11658Reverse PreemptionContract LawArbitrabilityDelegation Clauses
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtin v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JER.

The plaintiff, Curtin, filed an action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging personal injuries due to negligence by Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey during an emergency evacuation. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) and its implicit preemption of state law aviation safety standards. Curtin moved to remand the case, arguing that federal question or diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the FAA did not preempt state negligence claims. The court denied Curtin's motion, concluding that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for aviation safety, the purpose of the FAA, and its legislative history indicate that the standard of care is a matter of federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Federal Aviation ActPreemptionAviation SafetyState Law NegligenceFederal Question JurisdictionRemovalEmergency EvacuationAirline Deregulation ActSaving ClauseField Preemption
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crespo v. Kreisel Co.

The court addresses an application by defendant 160 West End Avenue Owners Corp. to renew and reargue a motion to dismiss an age discrimination claim brought by a plaintiff superintendent. The original motion to dismiss had been denied. The defendant's argument hinged on the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) through a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), citing a recent Second Circuit decision. However, the court distinguishes its position, noting that the FAA's exclusion for employment contracts (9 USC § 1) is interpreted broadly by a majority of federal courts, applying to all industries, not just transportation. Concluding that the CBA in question is not subject to the FAA, the court adheres to the New York Court of Appeals' precedent that allows judicial enforcement of such discrimination claims. Consequently, the motion to reargue is granted, but the prior decision to deny the dismissal of the complaint is maintained, allowing the superintendent's age discrimination claim to proceed.

Age DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment LawArbitration Clause9 USC 1Interstate CommerceJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Readyone Indus., Inc. v. Lopez

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, brought by ReadyOne Industries, Inc. against its former employee, Iveth Rodriguez Lopez. Lopez had claimed workplace injuries and filed a petition arguing that the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (MAA) was unenforceable due to several reasons, including the inapplicability of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), unconscionability, violations of the Texas Labor Code, and the unconstitutionality of the FAA. The appellate court examined ReadyOne's challenge to the trial court's denial of arbitration. The court concluded that the FAA was applicable, the MAA was neither ambiguous nor illusory, and Lopez failed to sufficiently establish procedural unconscionability or other defenses to the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision and ordered it to compel arbitration. Justice Rodriguez dissented, arguing that Lopez's affidavit detailing her learning disabilities and claims of being misled about the MAA's contents constituted sufficient evidence of procedural unconscionability.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActProcedural UnconscionabilityEmployment DisputeMotion to CompelInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Labor CodeContract EnforcementWaiver of Rights
References
45
Case No. 04-15-00307-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2015

Autozone, Inc. and Autozoners L.L.C. v. Mario Flores

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by AutoZone, Inc. and AutoZoners, L.L.C. against Mario Flores, challenging the denial of their motion to compel arbitration. Flores, an AutoZone employee, filed a personal injury lawsuit after an alleged workplace injury. AutoZone sought to enforce an arbitration agreement from its Occupational Injury Benefit Plan, which Flores had signed and re-acknowledged multiple times. Flores argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not apply due to an employment contract exception, that it violated the Texas Labor Code, and that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable because he could not read English. The appellants' brief argues that the FAA applies due to interstate commerce and explicit agreement, that the section 1 FAA exception only applies to transportation workers, that the Texas Labor Code argument is preempted and was conceded, and that the unconscionability claim against the entire contract should be for the arbitrator, and is meritless under Texas law which does not recognize illiteracy as a defense to contract. The trial court denied AutoZone's motion to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Interlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationProcedural UnconscionabilityEmployment ContractInterstate CommerceTexas Labor CodeContract EnforcementDispute Resolution
References
95
Case No. 26 NY3d 1074
Regular Panel Decision

Doctor Fred L. Pasternack v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings

Plaintiff Fred Pasternack, an airline pilot, sued LabCorp and ChoicePoint for negligence and fraud related to an alleged 'refusal to test' during a random drug screening. Pasternack claimed LabCorp's employee failed to follow 'shy bladder' procedures and inform him of the consequences of leaving, leading to the revocation of his airman certificates by the FAA. He also alleged fraud based on the employee's false statements to FAA investigators which the FAA relied upon. The New York Court of Appeals was asked to answer two certified questions from the Second Circuit: (1) whether federal drug testing regulations create a duty of care for labs under New York negligence law, and (2) whether third-party reliance can satisfy the reliance element of a New York fraud claim. The Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that only regulations implicating scientific integrity create a duty of care, and third-party reliance is insufficient for a fraud claim under New York law.

NegligenceFraudDuty of CareThird-Party RelianceDrug TestingFAA RegulationsDOT GuidelinesAirline PilotMedical Review OfficerAirman Certificates Revocation
References
36
Case No. 08-08-00348-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

in Re: Swift Transportation Company, Inc.

Swift Transportation Company, Inc. (Relator) seeks a writ of mandamus against Judge David C. Guaderrama to compel arbitration in a case involving Jose Valtierra, a former employee. Valtierra, an over-the-road truck driver, sued Swift for negligence after sustaining a job-related injury, despite Swift having an Injury Benefit Plan with a mandatory arbitration clause. The court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) applies to Swift's Injury Benefit Plan, given Valtierra's status as a transportation worker. The court concluded that the Injury Benefit Plan is an employment contract under Section 1 of the FAA, rendering the FAA inapplicable. Furthermore, the TAA did not apply because Valtierra's personal injury claim lacked a signed arbitration agreement advised by counsel. Ultimately, the court held that Swift's arbitration agreement was void and unenforceable under Section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, thereby denying Swift's petition for mandamus relief.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActEmployment ContractTransportation Workers ExemptionTexas Labor CodeMandamus ReliefNegligence ClaimInjury Benefit PlanNon-subscriber Employer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chartis Seguros Mexico, S.A. de C.V. v. HLI Rail & Rigging, LLC

This case involves a dispute arising from a train derailment in Texas in 2010 that led to multiple lawsuits. The current opinion addresses motions brought by Third-Party Defendant Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (FFIC) and Third-Party Defendant City Underwriting Agency (CUA). FFIC moved to compel arbitration of CUA's cross-claim and to sever it, arguing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies. CUA cross-moved to stay arbitration, claiming the transaction did not involve interstate commerce and arguing for the intertwining of claims. The court granted FFIC's motion to compel arbitration, finding the Agency Agreement between FFIC and CUA involved interstate commerce, thus making the FAA applicable. The court denied CUA’s motion to stay arbitration, rejecting arguments of intertwined claims, inefficiency, and potential for conflicting rulings, emphasizing the FAA's mandate for enforcing arbitration agreements. FFIC's motion to sever was granted in part and denied in part, while its request to stay HLI/Fresh’s third-party claims was denied without prejudice.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Interstate CommerceInsurance Policy DisputeAgency AgreementCross-ClaimIndemnificationSeverance of ClaimsStay of ArbitrationThird-Party Complaint
References
34
Case No. 08-25-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

LKQ Automotive D/B/A Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. and Jesus Duron v. Adan Robert Romo

LKQ Automotive and Jesus Duron appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against Adan Robert Romo. Romo, an LKQ commercial truck driver, was injured on the job and sued Appellants. Appellants sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Romo signed, but Romo argued he was a transportation worker engaged in interstate commerce, exempt from the FAA. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Romo met his burden of proving he was exempt from the FAA's arbitration provisions, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable under federal law.

Arbitration AgreementFAA ExemptionTransportation WorkerInterstate CommerceEmployment LawPersonal Injury ClaimTexas Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMotion to Compel ArbitrationSummary Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tremblay v. United States

Plaintiff Thomas A. Tremblay sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries sustained during pilot training, alleging FAA inspector Rick Taylor negligently instructed him to jump from an airplane exit. The United States moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by the discretionary function exception to the FTCA. The Court granted the motion, finding that FAA decisions regarding training programs, supervision, and regulation were discretionary and immune from judicial review. It also determined that Taylor's instruction fell within this protected discretion. Thus, Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Aviation AdministrationAirline TrainingPilot SafetyGovernment NegligenceMotion to DismissPersonal Injury
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 70 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational