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

Buckley v. Nabors Drilling USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Buckley, a seaman, sought damages under the Jones Act and General Maritime Law for injuries sustained while working on an offshore drilling rig. Defendant Nabors Offshore Corporation moved to compel arbitration based on its Dispute Resolution Program (DRP). The Court denied the motion, ruling that seamen are explicitly exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) under 9 U.S.C. § 1, regardless of their direct involvement in interstate commerce. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient evidence that Buckley actually read and understood the DRP, thus questioning the validity of any alleged arbitration agreement under Louisiana law. Therefore, the Court concluded that the plaintiff's employment contract was not governed by the FAA, and no binding arbitration agreement was established.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawFederal Arbitration ActSeaman ExemptionArbitration AgreementEmployment ContractContract ValidityInterstate CommerceTransportation WorkersDispute Resolution Program
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. JNJ Express, Inc.

The case involves a motion to compel arbitration filed by JNJ Express, Inc. against Marion and Mervin Carney. The Carneys, independent truck drivers, had lease agreements with JNJ, which included an arbitration clause. They filed a complaint in state court alleging violations of Truth in Leasing Regulations (TIL) and breach of contract, without first attempting face-to-face resolution as stipulated by the arbitration agreement. JNJ removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, arguing the Carneys were independent contractors, not employees, and thus subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court analyzed whether the Carneys were employees (exempt from FAA) or independent contractors and found them to be independent contractors. Consequently, the court granted JNJ's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings.

ArbitrationIndependent ContractorFederal Arbitration ActTruth in Leasing RegulationsMotor CarrierLease AgreementInterstate CommerceTruck DriversMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployment Status
References
14
Case No. H-95-4114
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Trans Chemical Ltd. & China National MacHiney Import & Export Corp.

This consolidated action involves efforts by Trans Chemical Limited (TCL) to enforce an arbitration award against China National Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CNMC). The dispute originated from a contract for a hydrogen peroxide plant in Pakistan, with an arbitration clause designating Houston, Texas. After an arbitration panel awarded TCL over $9.4 million, TCL sought confirmation in federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and New York Convention. CNMC challenged jurisdiction, service, and moved to vacate the award citing fraud and arbitrator misconduct. The court affirmed jurisdiction and proper service, ultimately denying CNMC's vacatur motions and granting TCL's request to confirm the arbitration award, including prejudgment and postjudgment interest.

International ArbitrationForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFederal Arbitration ActNew York ConventionContract EnforcementState-Owned EnterprisesSubject Matter JurisdictionService of ProcessArbitration Award ConfirmationArbitration Award Vacatur
References
129
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re David's Supermarkets, Inc.

Dennis Taylor filed a lawsuit against his employer, David’s Supermarkets, Inc., for work-related injuries. David’s moved to compel arbitration of Taylor’s claims under its dispute resolution plan, but Judge F.B. McGregor, Jr. of the 66th District Court of Hill County denied the motion. David’s then sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel arbitration. The court analyzed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Texas public policy, concluding that state public policy could not override the FAA's mandate favoring arbitration. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing Judge McGregor to order arbitration for Taylor’s claims.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActMandamusTexas Public PolicyEmployment DisputeWork-Related InjuryDispute Resolution PlanSupremacy ClauseJudicial ReviewEmployer Benefits Program
References
23
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
Jul 30, 2012

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA.

Justice Gische dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that arbitrators, not the court, should determine the enforceability of payment agreements containing arbitration clauses in workers' compensation cases. The dissent highlights that the payment agreements were not filed with the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau (WCIRB), an issue the insureds use to invalidate the arbitration provisions. Citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and Supreme Court precedent, Gische, J. contends that challenges to the contract as a whole should be decided by arbitrators. Furthermore, the dissent disagrees with the majority's application of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, asserting that California law does not prohibit arbitration in insurance disputes and that arbitration does not undermine filing requirements. The dissent critiques the Ceradyne decision as inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings on severability and arbitrability.

Arbitration ClausesArbitrabilityFederal Arbitration ActMcCarran-Ferguson ActWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance CodeContract EnforceabilityGateway IssuesDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singer v. Salomon Bros.

James A. Singer, a former managing director at Salomon Brothers, Inc., alleged discriminatory dismissal based on his disability, breach of contract, and quantum meruit after his employment was terminated following a cancer diagnosis. Salomon Brothers moved to stay Singer's action and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in Singer's U-4 form. Singer contended that his state discrimination claims were not arbitrable and that the U-4 form constituted an employment contract, thus falling under the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) employment contract exemption. The court, however, following US Supreme Court precedent, ruled that the U-4 form was a contract with the securities exchanges, not the employer, and therefore not exempt from the FAA. Concluding that arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution, even for discrimination claims, and that Singer failed to demonstrate that arbitration would be an inadequate forum, the court granted Salomon Brothers' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormSecurities IndustryNew York Human Rights LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationInterstate CommerceWrongful Termination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. County Bank

Patricia Hayes initiated a class action challenging the arbitration clause in loan documents provided by a federally-insured bank, seeking to declare it void. The Supreme Court, Queens County, compelled arbitration and stayed the action, a decision Hayes appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not bar the appeal and that the arbitration agreements were valid and enforceable. The court found no procedural unconscionability by Hayes and reiterated that precluding class actions does not inherently make agreements unconscionable. It also determined that the legality of the underlying loan agreements falls within the arbitrator's purview.

Arbitration AgreementClass Action WaiverLoan DocumentsUnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration Act PreemptionAppellate ReviewContract ValidityState Procedural RulesArbitrator's JurisdictionConsumer Loans
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers & Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The petitioner, an unincorporated labor association, sought a protective order to prevent the taking of depositions by the respondent. The dispute arose from a grievance filed by Local 601 regarding a local supplement to a collective bargaining agreement, which the respondent refused to arbitrate. The petitioner then initiated an action under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration. The respondent sought to depose various officials of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that discovery is not permissible in such proceedings without extraordinary need, that the depositions aimed to delve into the merits of the grievance (which is improper), and that they would cause delay and expense. The court denied the petitioner's motion, ruling that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to Federal Arbitration Act proceedings, permitting discovery into arbitrability, and that the respondent had shown expedition, with the petitioner selecting the forum.

Protective OrderDepositionsArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawDiscovery RulesArbitrabilityGrievance ProcedureFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
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
Showing 1-10 of 9,826 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