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. 413-87
Regular Panel Decision

Cooks v. City of Gladewater

Wendell Cooks appealed a workers' compensation judgment concerning venue and total incapacity benefits. Cooks, injured while working for the self-insured City of Gladewater, initially filed suit in Upshur County, claiming a second residence there, but the case was transferred to Gregg County where the injury occurred. The appellate court affirmed the venue transfer, ruling that Cooks failed to prove a second residence in Upshur County under the Snyder v. Pitts criteria. Additionally, the court upheld the jury's finding that the injury did not cause total incapacity, citing conflicting medical evidence from his chiropractic physician and other medical doctors.

Workers' CompensationVenue TransferSecond ResidenceTemporary Partial IncapacityMedical Expert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DistrictSelf-Insured Employer
References
6
Case No. 03-10-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

Robert Cook v. White Construction Company

Robert Cook, an employee of a subcontractor (Keystone Structural Concrete, Ltd.), was injured while working on a construction project where White Construction Company was the general contractor. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, Cook sued White for negligence. White moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusive-remedy defense, claiming it statutorily qualified as Cook's employer by providing his workers' compensation insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP). Cook contended White did not 'provide' the insurance in the required sense. The trial court granted White's summary judgment motion. The appellate court affirmed, citing the *HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice* case, finding that White was ultimately responsible for ensuring workers' compensation coverage for the subcontractor's employees, thus entitling it to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive-remedy defenseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorSubcontractorOwner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP)Employer LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
3
Case No. 01-23-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2025

Jennifer Cook v. Memorial Hermann Hospital Health System

Jennifer Cook sued Memorial Hermann Health System (MHHS) alleging religious and disability discrimination under the Texas Labor Code and wrongful termination, stemming from MHHS's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The trial court granted MHHS's motion to dismiss, citing Cook's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the non-viability of her public policy claim. Cook appealed, challenging the dismissal and the denial of her motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the public policy claim but reversed the denial of a new trial for the discrimination claims, finding Cook met the Craddock factors by showing her failure to respond was unintentional, she had a meritorious defense (EEOC right-to-sue letter), and no undue prejudice to MHHS.

Employment DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateRule 91a Motion to DismissCraddock RuleAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionAppellate ReviewMotion for New Trial
References
74
Case No. 08-22-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2023

Duane L. Cook v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Duane L. Cook, an employee of Doc’s Reverse Units, was injured in a motor-vehicle collision while driving a company truck to work and sought workers’ compensation. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, his employer’s insurance carrier, contested coverage. An administrative law judge initially found in Cook's favor, but a DWC appeals panel reversed. Cook then sued in the trial court, which granted summary judgment to Texas Mutual. Cook appealed, arguing the trial court erred by finding he was not in the course and scope of his duties and did not have a disability. The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case, finding genuine issues of material fact on both issues.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleCompensable InjuryDisabilityMotor Vehicle CollisionEmployer-Furnished VehicleTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. W2019-00271-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2020

Cook's Roofing, Inc. v. Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

This appeal concerns retrospective insurance premiums for an assigned risk workers’ compensation insurance policy. The insured employer, Cook's Roofing, Inc., sued Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company after an audit revealed additional premiums were owed due to an uninsured subcontractor. Cook's Roofing alleged negligence, promissory estoppel, and consumer protection violations. Hartford counterclaimed for the unpaid premiums. The trial court granted summary judgment to Hartford. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part regarding the 2006-2007 policy period premium, and remanded for further proceedings, including reconsideration of a motion to amend and the issue of piercing the corporate veil.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsAssigned Risk PolicySubcontractor LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimPromissory EstoppelTennessee Consumer Protection ActBreach of ContractPrejudgment Interest
References
59
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

Burns v. Cook

Plaintiff Debra A. Burns brought an action against Oren F. Cook, the Adirondack Central School District Board of Education, and the Adirondack Central School District. Her claims included violations of federal and state laws related to free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, the ADA, New York Civil Service Law § 75-b, defamation, property interests, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss for the ADA claim (due to untimeliness), defamation, damage to property interests and professional reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss for the free speech retaliation, substantive due process, equal protection, and New York Civil Service Law claims, allowing these to proceed.

First Amendment RetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities ActCivil Service LawEmployment DiscriminationPublic Employee RightsFreedom of SpeechMedical ConfidentialityMotion to Dismiss
References
38
Case No. 02-13-00405-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2014

Uneeda Reed v. Cook Children's Medical Center, Inc.

Uneeda Reed appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Cook Children’s Medical Center, Inc. (CCMC) on her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. Reed, an African-American lead tech, alleged discrimination after being denied T-DOC training and a special assignment, and claimed retaliation following her demotion and pay cut after raising concerns about unfair treatment and perceived racial issues. CCMC contended Reed's demotion was due to disruptive behavior, supported by coworker complaints, and the trial court excluded some of Reed's supporting evidence as hearsay. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Reed failed to demonstrate an "ultimate employment decision" for her discrimination claim and could not prove CCMC's non-discriminatory reason for demotion was a pretext for retaliation.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionPretextDisparate TreatmentHearsayTexas Labor CodeTitle VIIBurden-Shifting Analysis
References
50
Case No. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

DEPT. OF ASSISTIVE & REHAB. SERV. v. Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices by his employer to the State Auditor's Office. He claimed retaliation after his superiors learned of his report, leading to negative performance appraisals and denied promotions and merit pay increases despite an exemplary 24-year work record. Howard sued the Department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including the report's good faith, the appropriateness of the authority, and causation. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor's OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialCausationGood Faith ReportEmployment Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,100 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