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

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. 08-13-00280-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. 01-03-01055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2004

in Re Jonny Luna

The First District Court of Appeals of Texas reviewed a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Johnny Luna (Relator) against Poly-America, L.P. d/b/a Pol-Tex International and Poly-America GP, L.L.C. (collectively, Poly-America). Luna sought to overturn a trial court's order compelling arbitration in his wrongful discharge and retaliation claim under the Texas Labor Code. The core issue was the substantive unconscionability of an arbitration agreement between Luna and Poly-America. The court examined several provisions, including fee-splitting, limitations on remedies (punitive damages and reinstatement), discovery restrictions, and the scope of the agreement. While some provisions alone were not unconscionable, the court found that the high arbitration costs and the significant limitations on statutory remedies (reinstatement and punitive damages), when viewed cumulatively and against the strong legislative policy of the Worker's Compensation Act, rendered the arbitration agreement as a whole substantively unconscionable. Consequently, the court held that these integral unconscionable provisions could not be severed and conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to withdraw its order compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementSubstantive UnconscionabilityEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeMandamus ReliefWorker's Compensation ActFee-splittingLimitation of RemediesWrongful DischargeRetaliation
References
31
Case No. No. 04-1049
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2008

in Re Poly-America, L.P., Ind. and D/B/A Pol-Tex International, and Poly-America Gp, L.L.C.

This retaliatory-discharge case examines an employee's arbitration agreement, which includes provisions for splitting arbitration costs, limiting discovery, and eliminating punitive damages and reinstatement remedies available under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court must decide if these provisions are unconscionable and, if so, whether the contract's severability clause can preserve the arbitration right. The court holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the arbitrator to assess the unconscionability of the fee-splitting and discovery-limitation provisions as applied. However, the provisions precluding remedies under the Workers’ Compensation Act are found to be substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law. These unconscionable provisions are deemed severable, and the remainder of the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The petition for mandamus is conditionally granted.

Retaliatory DischargeArbitration AgreementUnconscionabilitySeverabilityWorkers' Compensation ActEmployment LawMandamusStatutory RightsFee-Splitting ProvisionDiscovery Limitations
References
78
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poly-America, L.P.

Johnny Luna, an employee of Poly-America, L.P., filed a retaliatory-discharge suit after sustaining a work injury and being fired. His employment contract included an arbitration agreement with provisions limiting remedies (no punitive damages or reinstatement), requiring fee-splitting, and limiting discovery. Luna challenged the agreement's unconscionability. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that the remedy-limitation provisions were substantively unconscionable and void under Texas law but were severable due to a severability clause. The Court also held that the trial court properly left the assessment of fee-splitting and discovery-limitation unconscionability to the arbitrator, as applied during the arbitration process, and conditionally granted Poly-America's petition for mandamus to compel arbitration after severance of the voided remedy clauses.

Arbitration AgreementUnconscionabilityWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ContractSeverability ClauseFee-SplittingDiscovery LimitationsPunitive DamagesReinstatement
References
78
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 950 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