T.W. Odom Management Services, Ltd. v. Thomas Williford, 09-16-00095-CV

Plaintiff Thomas Williford was hired by defendant T.W. Odom Management; as a condition of employment he signed a 2013 arbitration agreement and participated in an ERISA-governed non-subscriber workplace injury benefit plan.
Williford was injured at work in January 2014, collected over $90,000 in benefits under the Plan, and later sued T.W. Odom for negligence seeking traditional tort damages (lost earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering).
Williford signed a second arbitration agreement in September 2015 and timely revoked the 2015 agreement; he argued the revocation rendered the 2013 agreement ineffective.
The 2013 arbitration agreement broadly covers "all claims," expressly includes tort claims, excludes "workers’ compensation, non-subscriber compensation or unemployment benefits," incorporates the AAA employment rules, and expressly delegates to the arbitrator exclusive authority to decide interpretation, applicability, enforceability, and jurisdictional issues.
The trial court denied T.W. Odom’s motion to compel arbitration, finding the case was essentially a non-subscriber claim excluded from arbitration; T.W. Odom appealed under the FAA via Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.016.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should decide if Williford’s negligence claims fall within the arbitration agreement or whether that gateway issue was delegated to the arbitrator	Williford: his claims are non-subscriber compensation claims excluded from arbitration; he also argued the 2015 revocation invalidated arbitration	T.W. Odom: the 2013 agreement remains operative; the agreement delegates arbitrability and the arbitrator should decide scope	Court: The 2013 agreement clearly and unmistakably delegated gateway arbitrability issues to the arbitrator; trial court erred; arbitration compelled
Whether Williford’s negligence claims are tort claims within the scope of the arbitration agreement	Williford: claims are non-subscriber compensation in substance and thus excluded	T.W. Odom: claims are tort claims and fall within the 2013 agreement’s scope	Court: Did not decide on the merits because delegation required arbitrator to resolve that question (issue resolved in favor of delegation)

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (parties may delegate gateway arbitrability questions to an arbitrator)
First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995) (clear-and-unmistakable evidence required to delegate arbitrability)
J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. 2003) (burden shifts to opponent after valid arbitration agreement shown)
In re Labatt Food Serv., L.P., 279 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of motion to compel arbitration)
G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015) (distinguishing substantive vs. procedural arbitrability questions)
McGehee v. Bowman, 339 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (trial court must send gateway arbitrability disputes to arbitrator when delegation is clear)