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

Daniel Mendivil v. Zanios Foods, Inc.

Daniel Mendivil, a former delivery-truck driver for Zanios Foods, Inc., appealed a trial court's decision to compel arbitration after his employment was terminated following an injury. Mendivil challenged the Arbitration Policy Statement (APS), arguing it was invalid due to lack of consideration, being illusory, and unconscionable. The appellate court examined the APS, a stand-alone arbitration agreement, and found that Zanios had not made mutual, binding promises to arbitrate its own disputes or be bound by arbitration results. Therefore, the court concluded that the APS lacked the necessary consideration, rendering it an illusory contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseLack of ConsiderationContract FormationEmployment DisputeTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMutuality of ObligationAt-Will Employment
References
20
Case No. 13-00-626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2001

J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Chelsey Webster

J. M. Davidson, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Chelsey J. Webster. Webster, a former employee, sued Davidson for retaliatory termination after filing a workers' compensation claim. Davidson argued that an "Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy" signed by Webster mandated arbitration. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, affirmed the trial court's order denying arbitration and denied Davidson's petition for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable due to a lack of mutual obligation and consideration, as Davidson retained the unilateral right to modify or terminate its personnel policy, rendering the promise of continued at-will employment illusory. Justice Castillo dissented, arguing that a valid arbitration agreement existed with mutual promises providing sufficient consideration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment At-WillWorkers' Compensation RetaliationMotion to Compel ArbitrationContract LawConsiderationMutuality of ObligationTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActInterlocutory Appeal
References
50
Case No. M2020-01509-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

McKayla Taylor v. Miriam's Promise

McKayla Taylor filed a lawsuit against twelve defendants, including Kellye Reid and Cookeville Regional Medical Center (CRMC), concerning the adoption of her child and sought $50 million in damages. The initial trial court dismissed all claims, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Upon remand, Ms. Reid sought and was awarded attorney fees under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, with CRMC paying the fees. Ms. Taylor appealed this award, challenging the statute's applicability and constitutionality, specifically her right to access the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the statute applicable and constitutional, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Attorney FeesGovernmental Tort Liability ActConstitutional ChallengeAccess to CourtsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessStatute ConstitutionalityAppellate ReviewDismissal of ClaimsSocial Worker Liability
References
55
Case No. W2004-00305-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2004

Donald Glidewell v. Ann Russell

Donald Glidewell initiated a detainer action against Ann Russell to regain possession of his property. Russell had been residing on the property with Glidewell's brother, Hugh, and continued to live there after Hugh's death, making significant improvements based on an alleged promise from Glidewell that she could stay for life. The trial court sided with Russell, applying the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, acknowledging Glidewell's promise but limiting its enforceability. The court determined that Russell's significant improvements were made before the clear promise and her reliance after the promise was for minor expenditures. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded, granting Glidewell possession while ordering a hearing to assess damages for Russell's expenditures made in reliance on Glidewell's promise after Hugh's death.

Promissory EstoppelEquitable EstoppelDetainer ActionProperty RightsReal EstateImprovements to PropertyRelianceBreach of PromiseReversal and RemandAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Odyssey Healthcare, Inc.

This negligence case addresses whether a trial court erred by refusing to compel arbitration. Guadalupe Morales sued her employer, Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., and a supervisor for workplace injuries. Odyssey, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, had an Occupational Injury Benefit Plan requiring arbitration. The trial court denied Odyssey's motion, citing unconscionability of the arbitration location. The higher court found no abuse of discretion in compelling arbitration, rejecting Morales's defenses related to unconscionability, the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, the Tenth Amendment, and illusory promises. The writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, ordering the trial court to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMandamus ReliefSubstantive UnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Tenth AmendmentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployment LawContractual ConsiderationIllusory PromiseJudicial Discretion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marciano v. DCH Auto Group

Plaintiff Lucia Marciano sued DCH Auto Group, Brian Lam, and Bernard Fee alleging workplace discrimination under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York’s Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Marciano signed during her employment application. Marciano challenged the agreement's enforceability, claiming lack of assent, illusory promise, absence of consideration, and prohibitive arbitration costs. The court found Marciano's arguments unconvincing, concluding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed. Therefore, the court granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, but denied their request for attorneys' fees.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationContract LawAssentConsiderationUnconscionability
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry & Sons Construction Co., Inc. v. Pablo Campos

Pablo Campos sued his employer, Henry & Sons Construction Company, Inc. (HSC), for personal injuries sustained at work. HSC, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, sought to compel arbitration based on its Dispute Resolution Policy. The trial court denied this motion, leading to HSC's interlocutory appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding HSC's promise to arbitrate illusory because the Policy allowed unilateral modification without guaranteed advance notice or clear prospective-only application of revisions. The court concluded that Campos's acceptance of benefits under a separate Employee Injury Benefit Plan did not ratify the arbitration agreement nor provide alternative consideration.

Arbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseContractual ConsiderationUnilateral ModificationProspective ApplicationAdvance NoticeTexas Contract LawEmployment LawPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quinn v. EMC Corp.

Plaintiff Gary Quinn sued his former employer, EMC Corp., alleging causes of action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, along with a state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration based on a Key Employment Agreement. The Court found the arbitration agreement valid, rejecting arguments of illusory promise and unconscionability regarding fees. It concluded that all of Plaintiff's claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, therefore granting Defendant's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationAge Discrimination in Employment ActAmericans with Disabilities ActFamily and Medical Leave ActIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFederal Arbitration ActMotion to StayCompel ArbitrationContractual Arbitration Provision
References
30
Case No. 13-06-00353-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

in Re: Rio Grande Regional Hospital

Rio Grande Regional Hospital sought a writ of mandamus to compel arbitration in a negligence suit brought by its former employee, Norma Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a housekeeper, was injured on the job and sued Rio Grande, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation. Rio Grande argued a signed 'Election to Participate' in an Employee Health and Safety Plan, which included an arbitration clause, bound Gonzalez. However, Gonzalez contended the agreement lacked consideration because she was ineligible for the plan's benefits as a 'PRN' employee and was denied coverage upon injury. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, denied the writ, affirming the trial court's decision. The appellate court ruled that Rio Grande's promise of benefits was illusory, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable due to a lack of consideration.

ArbitrationContract LawEmployment ArbitrationLack of ConsiderationIllusory ContractWrit of MandamusTexas Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. 13-02-149-CV
Regular Panel Decision

In Re C H News Company

Relator, Nueces News Agency, Inc., d/b/a ETD KroMar, Southern Division, filed a second petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit. The underlying suit was initiated by the real parties in interest (Odilia Gallegos et al.) against the relator following the death of a former employee, Jesus Gallegos, Sr. The respondent judge, Honorable Rolando Olv-era, denied the relator's motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court reviewed whether a valid arbitration agreement existed, particularly considering an employee handbook incorporated by reference. The court found that the relator retained the unilateral right to amend the handbook, including the scope of the arbitration agreement, thus rendering the agreement an illusory promise and unenforceable due to lack of mutuality of obligation. Consequently, the appellate court denied the relator's petition for writ of mandamus.

Arbitration AgreementWrit of MandamusIllusory PromiseMutuality of ObligationEmployment LawFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawUnilateral Amendment
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 170 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