Appellant LaDonna Crocker urges Texas Workforce Commission to reconsider misconduct finding, cites medical condition and due-process concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
LaDonna Crocker, appellant in an ongoing unemployment appeal, told the Texas Workforce Commission she suffered a stroke, TIA and PNES in August 2024, that medical conditions affected job performance, and that employer and tribunal procedures failed to consider medical evidence and witnesses. She asked the commission to reconsider prior findings.
LaDonna Crocker addressed the Texas Workforce Commission during public comment and asked the panel to reconsider findings in her appeal (listed on the record as 38891802). Crocker said she suffered a stroke, a transient ischemic attack and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures in August 2024, received a six-week workplace accommodation and used short-term disability, and then returned to work on Sept. 23. She told commissioners she was never written up for misconduct before the medical episode and said her employer had full medical documentation of her condition.
Crocker said the employer later alleged she completed 31 inspections on Oct. 31 — a claim she said never happened and that she never reported — and that the employer relied on secondhand, notarized testimony rather than firsthand evidence. She said the employer and the hearings officer denied her requests to call a witness and did not admit additional medical documentation she submitted with her appeal.
Crocker told the commission that long-term effects from her condition include memory loss, confusion, fatigue and cognitive difficulties that can cause errors she described as unintentional and related to health rather than willful misconduct. She argued that Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) and the unemployment-appeals process did not adequately engage in the ADA-mandated interactive process after her leave and did not consider the long-term effects of her condition.
Commissioners acknowledged her comment but did not take immediate action during the public-comment segment. Crocker asked the commission to reconsider all documentation previously submitted to validate her claims.
The commission record includes discussion of related cases later in the docket where commissioners debated whether employer evidence, employee testimony and timing of notices met the standard for misconduct, fraud or timeliness. The transcript shows disagreements among commissioners about when to reverse, modify, rehear or affirm administrative tribunal decisions; no commission-level final reversal or modification specifically resolving Crocker’s request is recorded in the public-comment segment.
Crocker’s statement, as recorded on the docket, included appeal number 38891802 and references to TDLR and TWC hearings and records. She requested reconsideration and fuller admission of medical evidence and witness testimony; the transcript indicates commissioners discussed related evidentiary and due-process issues during subsequent case deliberations but does not record an explicit commission ruling tied to her public comments at that time.