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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Weeks Marine, Inc.

Jose Jimenez was injured while employed by Weeks Marine and subsequently signed a Claim Arbitration Agreement. Despite the agreement, Jimenez sued Weeks Marine under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Weeks Marine sought to compel arbitration, but the trial court, presided over by Judge Levi Benton, denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. Weeks Marine then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the appellate court. The appellate court, in this opinion, reviewed whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and whether the trial court abused its discretion. The court determined the agreement is subject to the FAA and found the trial court misapplied FELA Section 5 and related cases. It also found the agreement not substantively unconscionable. However, regarding procedural unconscionability, the court concluded that the issue was for the trial court to decide, and if an implicit finding was made without an evidentiary hearing, it was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition to vacate the trial court's orders but denied the request to compel arbitration, pending a proper evidentiary hearing on procedural unconscionability.

MandamusArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Jones ActFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)SeamanEmployment ContractUnconscionabilityProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
38
Case No. No. 08-12-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2013

Delfingen US-Texas, LP v. Guadalupe Valenzuela

This case involves an appeal by Delfingen US-Texas, L.P. against Guadalupe Valenzuela, challenging a trial court's order denying Delfingen's motion to compel arbitration. Valenzuela, a former employee who is unable to read English, sued Delfingen for wrongful termination after pursuing workers' compensation benefits. She argued that the arbitration agreement she signed was procedurally unconscionable because it was not explained to her in Spanish, and Delfingen's human resources representative affirmatively misrepresented the nature of the document. The Court of Appeals, Eighth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Valenzuela met her burden of proving procedural unconscionability based on the totality of circumstances, including her illiteracy and Delfingen's misleading conduct.

Arbitration AgreementProcedural UnconscionabilityEmployment LawContract EnforcementIlliteracy DefenseFraudulent InducementAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationTexas Courts
References
47
Case No. 08-13-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Whataburger Restaurants LLC v. Yvonne Cardwell

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration, brought by Whataburger Restaurants LLC against Yvonne Cardwell. The trial court initially denied arbitration based on unconscionability. The appellate court found the trial court erred in its unconscionability analysis, and after a remand from the Texas Supreme Court, reviewed Cardwell's additional arguments for procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court sustained Whataburger's challenge to the trial court's findings on substantive unconscionability and overruled Cardwell's alternative claims of unconscionability. However, the court remanded the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was an "illusory contract" back to the trial court due to an incomplete record, declining to rule on this complex, fact-intensive inquiry at the appellate level.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityIllusory ContractEmployment DisputeWorkers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealTexas Supreme CourtContract LawAppellate ProcedureFederal Arbitration Act
References
31
Case No. No. 08-14-00135-CV (TC# 2013-DCV-3700)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

ReadyOne Industries, Inc. v. Roberto Casillas

ReadyOne Industries, Inc. appealed an order denying its motion to compel arbitration in a worker's compensation nonsubscriber tort case filed by Robert Casillas, who alleged an on-the-job injury and sued for negligence. ReadyOne sought to enforce a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (MAA) signed by Casillas. Casillas asserted defenses including that the MAA was illusory and procedurally unconscionable. The appellate court found that ReadyOne had established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court systematically rejected each of Casillas's defenses, including arguments regarding the illusoriness of the agreement, procedural unconscionability, applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act, preemption of state workers' compensation schemes, Tenth Amendment violations, and unenforceability under specific sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Texas Labor Code. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Arbitration AgreementWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberNegligence ClaimMotion to Compel ArbitrationContract EnforceabilityIllusory ContractProcedural UnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActState Law PreemptionTenth Amendment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Luna

Johnny Luna, an at-will employee, was terminated by Poly-America after filing a worker's compensation claim and subsequently sued for wrongful discharge and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code. Poly-America sought to compel arbitration based on an agreement Luna had signed. Luna challenged the arbitration agreement's substantive unconscionability, specifically pointing to provisions on fee-splitting, limited remedies (prohibiting punitive damages and reinstatement), limited discovery, and the inability to apply a 'good cause' standard. The court determined that while individual provisions might not be unconscionable, the cumulative effect of the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies rendered the agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. The court also rejected Poly-America's argument for severability, concluding the problematic provisions were integral to the agreement. As a result, the court conditionally granted Luna's petition for writ of mandamus, instructing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityMandamus ReliefEmployment LawWorker's Compensation ActWrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimFee-Splitting ProvisionRemedy LimitationDiscovery Limitation
References
36
Case No. 08-18-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

APC Home Health Services Inc. v. Lucina Martinez

This case involves an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to compel arbitration. Lucina Martinez, an employee of APC Home Health Services, Inc., sued her employer for negligence after sustaining a workplace injury. APC, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, sought to enforce an arbitration agreement Martinez had signed. The appellate court found that APC successfully demonstrated the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applied. The court rejected Martinez's procedural unconscionability claims but remanded the issue of substantive unconscionability concerning a one-year time limit for claims to the trial court for further consideration. The case was reversed and remanded for arbitration under the agreement's terms, with the trial court to address the specific unconscionability point.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawWorkplace InjuryNegligenceUnconscionabilityContract EnforcementInterlocutory AppealTexas LawWorker's Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
63
Case No. 14-05-00604-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2007

in Re: TMI, Inc. Trendmaker Homes

This case involves a consolidated interlocutory appeal and petition for writ of mandamus by TMI, Inc. (Trendmaker Homes) against numerous homeowners. Trendmaker challenged a trial court's May 13, 2005 order denying its motion to compel arbitration. The homeowners had sued Trendmaker over environmental contamination on their homesites and alleged fraudulent inducement and unconscionability of the arbitration clause in their purchase agreements. The appellate court determined that the homeowners' claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement. It found no sufficient evidence for procedural unconscionability (fraudulent inducement) and ruled that the arbitration clause was not substantively unconscionable due to cost, as the agreement did not mandate the most expensive arbitration forum. The court reversed the trial court's order, remanding the case for arbitration, and denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionability DefenseProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive UnconscionabilityFraudulent InducementContract DisputeEnvironmental ContaminationHomeowner LitigationTexas General Arbitration ActInterlocutory Appeal
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,489 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