Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. David Kelly, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11194

David Kelley was seriously injured in an 18-wheeler accident while employed by Mission Petroleum Carriers; while hospitalized and on narcotic pain medication, he signed paperwork to enroll in Tetco’s Health & Safety Plan (H&S Plan) that included an arbitration agreement.
Kelley later filed a negligence suit against Mission alleging gross negligence and punitive damages; Mission moved to compel arbitration under the H&S Plan arbitration acknowledgment Kelley signed.
Kelley opposed arbitration, arguing procedural unconscionability and that he was incapacitated by medication when he signed; he submitted affidavits from himself and his wife describing limited recollection and that a Mission representative insisted he sign to receive benefits.
The trial court held an evidentiary hearing; Mission presented affidavits and transaction records showing Kelley received substantial H&S Plan benefits (over $88,000 total; over $29,500 after suit) and continued weekly payments after Mission sought to compel arbitration.
The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration; Mission appealed the interlocutory denial under the FAA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kelley)	Defendant's Argument (Mission)	Held
Whether Kelley can avoid arbitration due to procedural unconscionability and incapacity when he signed	Kelley says the agreement is procedurally unconscionable and he was incapacitated by narcotics when he signed, so it’s unenforceable	Mission says Kelley ratified the arbitration agreement by accepting and retaining H&S Plan benefits after learning of the alleged invalidity	Court held Kelley ratified the agreement by accepting benefits after suit and after arbitration was sought; arbitration compelled

J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (party resisting arbitration bears burden to show agreement invalid)
In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749 (Tex. 2001) (Texas law favors arbitration; burden on party opposing arbitration)