CompFox AI Summary
Swift Transportation Company, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus to compel the 243rd District Court, Judge David C. Guaderrama, to grant its motion to compel arbitration against employee Jose Valtierra. Valtierra, an over-the-road truck driver for Swift, a non-subscriber to Texas Workers’ Compensation, was injured and received benefits under Swift's Injury Benefit Plan, which contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Valtierra subsequently filed a negligence suit, and Swift moved to compel arbitration. The appellate court denied relief, finding that Swift's Injury Benefit Plan is an employment contract within the meaning of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), thus exempting it from FAA coverage. Furthermore, the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) was deemed inapplicable because it was a personal injury suit without a signed agreement to arbitrate by counsel. Under Texas common law, the arbitration agreement was found void and unenforceable due to Section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, which prohibits pre-injury waiver of causes of action for non-subscriber employers.
In Re Swift Transportation Co. is a workers' compensation case decided in Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso). This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso).
Full Decision Text1 Pages
Swift Transportation Company, Inc. sought a writ of mandamus to compel the 243rd District Court, Judge David C. Guaderrama, to grant its motion to compel arbitration against employee Jose Valtierra. Valtierra, an over-the-road truck driver for Swift, a non-subscriber to Texas Workers’ Compensation, was injured and received benefits under Swift's Injury Benefit Plan, which contains a mandatory arbitration clause. Valtierra subsequently filed a negligence suit, and Swift moved to compel arbitration. The appellate court denied relief, finding that Swift's Injury Benefit Plan is an employment contract within the meaning of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), thus exempting it from FAA coverage. Furthermore, the Texas General Arbitration Act (TAA) was deemed inapplicable because it was a personal injury suit without a signed agreement to arbitrate by counsel. Under Texas common law, the arbitration agreement was found void and unenforceable due to Section 406.033(e) of the Texas Labor Code, which prohibits pre-injury waiver of causes of action for non-subscriber employers.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.