CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Case No. 07-24-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

David Carr v. Classic Special Automotive, LTD D/B/A Round Rock Toyota;,Cintas Corporation No. 2; And Tidwell Professional Power Touch, LLC

David Carr filed a premises liability suit against Round Rock Toyota after slipping on wet tiles at a dealership. The trial court granted summary judgment for Round Rock Toyota, prompting Carr to appeal the decision. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that Carr had actual knowledge of the wet and slippery condition, which negated the landowner's duty to warn. Therefore, Carr could not recover for a fall caused by a condition he had observed and navigated multiple times.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentInvitee statusOpen and obvious hazardActual knowledgeAppellate reviewWaiver of appealTexas Courts of AppealsSlip and fallLandowner duty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2014

Carr v. McHugh Painting Co.

Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, suffered a back injury while installing a heavy door from a scissor lift at an elevated height during a renovation project, leading him and other plaintiffs to sue the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc., under Labor Law and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's summary judgment motion but granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and allowed amendment for an Industrial Code violation claim. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against the defendant, ruling that Carr's injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard falling within the scope of § 240 (1) and the alleged Industrial Code violation was factually inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence, concluding that the defendant did not prove the risk was inherent in the work and had exercised supervisory control over the work methods. Consequently, the case was partially affirmed and partially dismissed on specific claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafe Place to WorkGeneral Contractor LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. Carroll Co.

Austin Carr, a general employee of Manpower, Inc., was assigned to work at The Carroll Company. While working, he sustained injuries after falling from a forklift, leading him to sue Carroll for negligence. The jury found both Carr and Carroll 50% negligent and determined Carr was a 'borrowed employee' of Carroll. Since Carroll subscribed to the Workers’ Compensation Act, the trial court ruled that Carr take nothing. Carr appealed, arguing errors in the 'borrowed employee' doctrine submission and the contributory negligence issues. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the borrowed employee status and proper submission of contributory negligence.

Borrowed Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActNegligenceContributory NegligenceRight of ControlGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerJury InstructionAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1978

Claim of Carr v. Woods

Claimant Cecil M. Carr sustained a back injury after falling from a ladder while painting a home owned by Ann M. Woods. Woods initially classified Carr as an 'Independent Laborer,' but he filed a compensation claim, leading to a dispute over his employment status. Evidence showed Carr worked for Woods as a handyman for two decades across multiple properties, furnishing his own tools and being paid hourly, though no taxes were withheld. Despite these factors, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a referee's decision, finding an employer-employee relationship existed due to Woods's significant control and direction over Carr's work, including the right to assign tasks and terminate employment. The board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorScope of EmploymentControl TestSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor LawBack InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2001

Carr v. WestLB Administration, Inc.

Plaintiff Arlen Carr sued his employer, WestLB Administration, alleging age and religious discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. WestLB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted WestLB's motion for summary judgment on the age discrimination, retaliation, and emotional distress claims, finding Carr failed to establish a prima facie case for age discrimination and retaliation, and the emotional distress claims were legally barred. Carr voluntarily withdrew his religious discrimination claims, which were then dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, the court entered summary judgment in favor of WestLB on all counts.

Age DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPrima Facie CaseEmotional DistressADEANYSHRLTitle VII
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. New York State Department of Transportation

Petitioner James Carr, a Highway Maintenance Worker I, was terminated by the Department of Transportation after his commercial driver's license (CDL) was revoked due to an off-duty alcohol-related driving offense. A CDL was a minimum qualification for his position under Civil Service Law § 118 (2) (a). Carr and his union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., challenged the termination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious, violated due process, and failed to adhere to collective bargaining agreement (CBA) disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, which the appellate court affirmed. The court distinguished between termination for misconduct, subject to CBA disciplinary action, and termination for lacking a minimum job qualification, which is not. Given that Carr's termination stemmed from failing to meet a fundamental job requirement, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, the CBA's disciplinary provisions were inapplicable, and his due process rights were upheld as he received notice and an opportunity to respond.

Employment terminationCommercial Driver's LicenseOff-duty conductMinimum qualificationsCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue processCPLR article 78Appellate reviewPublic employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. Mills

Charles Edward Carr, an employee of Klopman Mills, was awarded worker's compensation benefits for a permanent and total disability resulting from an occupational lung disease. Carr's employment from 1964 to 1980 exposed him to significant dust, lint, and oil mist, which medical experts largely linked to his condition. Klopman Mills appealed, contending a lack of supporting evidence. The appellate court, however, found material evidence in the record, primarily from expert medical testimony, to support the trial court's findings and affirmed the judgment. A motion for damages due to a frivolous appeal was denied.

Occupational Lung DiseaseWorkers' Compensation AppealCausal ConnectionMedical Expert TestimonyPermanent DisabilityIndustrial ExposurePulmonary DiseaseEvidentiary ReviewChancellor's FindingsAppellate Scrutiny
References
3
Case No. 2017-03-1526
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2021

Carr, Mandy v. Vacasa Tennessee LLC

Mandi Carr, an employee of Vacasa Tennessee, LLC, sustained an alleged work-related back injury on July 4, 2017, aggravating a pre-existing condition. The court found that she showed by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained an aggravation injury arising out of her employment. However, the court also determined that the aggravation was not permanent as she returned to her baseline condition. The court credited Dr. Thomas Koenig's testimony over Dr. Patrick Bolt's due to Ms. Carr's lack of credibility regarding her symptoms and prior medical history. Consequently, the court denied her claim for permanent disability benefits and ruled that Vacasa is not required to provide any additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPre-existing ConditionAggravationPermanent DisabilityMedical OpinionCredibilityBaseline ConditionTemporary ExacerbationVocational Assessment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 39 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational