Woman cannot pursue claims against co-worker for dog bite

A woman who was bitten by her co-worker’s dog cannot pursue her negligence claims because they are barred by the exclusive remedy of the Texas Workers Compensation Act.

In Robinson v. Cox, the Texas Court of Appeals, Second District in Fort Worth on Thursday affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss the worker’s claims after finding that the dog owner was in the course and scope of her employment when she brought her dog to work.

Kyra Robinson worked for the Gladney Center for Adoption in Fort Worth, Texas, as a house parent. One day while at work, she was bitten by a border collie on the premises that was owned by her co-worker, Heidi Bruegel Cox, who served as the center’s general counsel and executive vice president.

Ms. Robinson filed for workers compensation for injuries related to her dog bite, which were granted. She then filed a complaint against Ms. Cox alleging strict liability and gross negligence. Ms. Cox moved for summary judgment on the basis that Ms. Robinson’s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, which was granted by a trial court.

Ms. Robinson appealed, arguing that the act of bringing her collie, Jackson, to the workplace did not occur within the scope of Ms. Cox’s employment and therefore her suit was not barred by the exclusive remedy.

The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of Ms. Cox. The court noted that on the day of the incident, Ms. Cox was an employee of Gladney, and she testified that she brought her dog to work at the request of birth mothers and several others at the center, and said that Jackson had previously served as a comfort dog to some of Gladney’s clients.

Under the act, the exclusive remedy provision extends to “an agent or employee of the employer,” noting that Ms. Robinson’s held that her receipt of workers compensation benefits extended the act’s exclusive remedy defense to Ms. Cox.

Although Ms. Robinson argued that Ms. Cox had to prove that the act of bringing her dog was in furtherance of Gladney’s business to establish that defense, the court held that her act of bringing the dog at the request of others sufficiently established that she was within the course and scope of her employment when Ms. Robinson was bitten by her dog.