law-preemption-federal | FAA vs TAA preemption issues |
No HIPAA Preemption
In re Lester Collins, MD, No. 07-0737 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009)(O'Neill) (discovery mandamus brought by doctor;
trial court's protective order lifted covering ex parte contacts with witnesses)(medical health care information
privacy, patient's release as condition of bringing med-mal suit, no HIPAA preemption)
IN RE LESTER COLLINS, M.D.; from Smith County; 12th district
(12-06-00078-CV, 224 SW3d 798, 05-14-07)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court.
Determination of whether valid agreement to arbitrate was formed a question of state law,
not preempted
Poly-America argues that the FAA’s “strong presumption” favoring arbitration applies in this case, and
furthermore that the FAA preempts all state public-policy grounds for finding the agreement to arbitrate
unenforceable. See In re R&R Personnel Specialists of Tyler, Inc., 146 S.W.3d 699, 705 (Tex. 2004) (holding
that the FAA preempts “any public policy underlying the Texas workers’ compensation statutes that is contrary
to the enforceability of arbitration agreements”). Because neither this presumption nor federal preemption
applies in a state court’s assessment of whether parties have entered into a valid and enforceable agreement
to arbitrate under state contract law, we disagree. In re Poly-America, LP, 262 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. 2008)
(arbitration in employment context, FAA, retaliatory discharge, employment law, limitation of remedies,
unconscionability argument challenge sustained, offending provision stricken, but remainder of arbitration
agreement given effect).
Jones Act Preemption
In Re Global Santa Fe Corp., No. 07-0040 (Tex. 2008) (Willett) (silica litigation, Jones Act preemption issues)
IN RE GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION; from Harris County; 14th district (14-06-00625-CV, ___ SW3d ___,
12-19-06)
The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Justice Willett delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Preemption in Product Liability Cases
Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter, No. 05-0835 (Tex. Apr. 18, 2008)(David Medina) (products liability, design defect
claim, implicit federal preemption of state tort law, manufacturing defect claim)
Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA")
07-1061
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS v. THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY; from
Fort Bend County; 14th district (14-05-01106-CV, 237 SW3d 355, 06-21-07, pet. denied Jun 2008) (Justice
O'Neill not sitting) (condemnation eminent domain, road easement, federal preemption)
Appellant, Fort Bend County, appeals the judgment awarding the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad
Company $90,756.51 as reimbursement of expenditures in the adjustment and relocation of an eligible utility
facility, required by the County's condemnation of land for a larger railroad crossing. Because we find the
County is federally preempted under the ICCTA from condemning a public crossing that cuts Burlington's
passing track, we vacate the trial court's judgment and dismiss the case.