CHG HOSPITAL BELLAIRE, LLC; CHG EMPLOYEE HOLDING, LLC; AND CHG HOSPITAL HOUSTON, LLC v. SEKETA JOHNSON; from Harris County; 1st Court of Appeals District (01-20-00437-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04-20-21) (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Texas No. 21-0441 CHG Hospital Bellaire, LLC; CHG Employee Holding, LLC; and CHG Hospital Houston, LLC, Petitioners, v. Seketa Johnson, Respondent On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas PER CURIAM Seketa Johnson was injured on the job and sued her employer for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. The employer (CHG) filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that the parties had mutually consented to an enforceable arbitration agreement. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that Johnson’s sworn testimony that she did not recall electronically acknowledging the arbitration agreement at issue created a fact question as to its validity. ___ S.W.3d ___, 2021 WL 1537465, at *7 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 20, 2021). After the court of appeals issued its opinion, we decided Aerotek, Inc. v. Boyd, 624 S.W.3d 199 (Tex. 2021), a case involving substantially similar facts. CHG petitioned this Court for review, and the parties agree that under Aerotek, Johnson failed to raise a fact issue as to whether she consented to the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, we grant CHG’s petition for review, and, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1. We remand the case to the court of appeals to consider Johnson’s alternative, unaddressed argument that the trial court properly denied CHG’s motion to compel arbitration because her claims do not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 53.4; State v. $90,235 in U.S. Currency, 390 S.W.3d 289, 294 (Tex. 2013) (“[O]rdinarily a case will be remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings when we reverse the judgment of the appeals court and the reversal necessitates consideration of issues raised in but not addressed by that court.”). OPINION DELIVERED: April 22, 2022 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.