## Facts

- Douglas Brocail pitched for the Detroit Tigers during the 2000 MLB season under a uniform player contract incorporated into the MLB collective-bargaining agreement (CBA).
- In June 2000, Brocail developed pain in his pitching elbow; Tigers physicians treated him and referred him to a specialist.
- He spent time on the disabled list, attempted to return in early September 2000, and experienced renewed severe pain.
- In late September 2000, Brocail underwent elbow surgery that revealed more extensive damage than earlier diagnoses indicated.
- The CBA and uniform player contract governed medical-care obligations, disabled-list matters, procedures for second medical opinions, and trade procedures.
- In November 2000, Detroit traded Brocail to the Houston Astros.
- In April 2001, Brocail suffered another serious elbow injury while with Houston and missed the entire 2001 season, returning to the majors in 2004.
- Brocail sued Detroit asserting Michigan-law claims for negligent medical treatment, failure to provide a second opinion beyond CBA requirements, and trade-related wrongdoing (including lack of valid consent or fraudulent inducement).
- Detroit obtained summary judgment, arguing LMRA § 301 preemption, Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) exclusivity, and the Michigan statute of frauds.

## Issues

1. Whether Brocail’s medical-treatment and second-opinion claims were preempted by LMRA § 301 because they required interpretation of the CBA and uniform player contract.
2. Whether the Michigan WDCA provided the exclusive remedy for Brocail’s alleged work-related injury claims, barring common-law tort claims against the employer.
3. Whether trade-related claims based on alleged side promises or improper consent were barred by the Michigan statute of frauds and/or also preempted by LMRA § 301.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary judgment for the Detroit Tigers on all claims.
- It held that the medical-care, second-opinion, and trade-related claims were preempted under LMRA § 301 because resolving them was substantially dependent on interpreting the CBA and uniform player contract.
- It further held that, to the extent Brocail sought recovery for work-related injuries based on employer negligence, the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision displaced common-law claims.
- It held that alleged extra-contractual trade-related promises were unenforceable under the Michigan statute of frauds and, insofar as they implicated CBA/contract terms, were also preempted.

## Legal Principles

- LMRA § 301 preempts state-law claims that are substantially dependent on analysis or interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement; recasting such disputes as tort or contract claims under state law does not avoid preemption.
- When a CBA and incorporated employment contract define the parties’ duties on medical care, second opinions, and trades, claims contesting compliance with those duties generally require contract interpretation and fall within federal labor-law dispute mechanisms rather than state court litigation.
- Michigan’s WDCA generally provides the exclusive remedy for employees’ work-related injuries against the employer, barring parallel common-law negligence theories seeking damages for those injuries.
- Under the Michigan statute of frauds, alleged oral or informal promises that would modify or add to the written employment agreement or extend obligations beyond the writing are unenforceable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the club because the player’s challenges to medical treatment, second-opinion access, and trade consent depended on rights and duties set by the CBA and uniform player contract (triggering LMRA § 301 preemption), were additionally barred as tort claims by Michigan’s workers’ compensation exclusivity, and relied on alleged non-written promises barred by the Michigan statute of frauds.


Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 268 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008)