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. 03-96-00151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Pedro Antonio Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment that suspended his authority to practice law for eighteen months. The suspension followed a jury's finding that Diaz violated three disciplinary rules: making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, commingling lawyer and client funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Diaz challenged the submission of additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the district court proceedings were original and independent, allowing for the assertion of additional claims. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the false statements made in an affidavit and rejected arguments concerning materiality and Diaz's role as a party.

lawyer disciplineprofessional misconductfalse statementscommingling fundsattorney suspensionappellate reviewTexas lawlegal ethicssummary judgmentequitable lien
References
3
Case No. 07-23-00275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2024

City of San Antonio v. Patricia Diaz

The City of San Antonio appealed the denial of its jurisdictional challenge against Patricia Diaz's employment discrimination lawsuit, which arose from her termination for allegedly misusing a subordinate's time. The Court of Appeals, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found Diaz failed to present sufficient evidence for her sex, age, and retaliation discrimination claims. Specifically, she lacked proof of comparable seriousness for disparate discipline or clear opposition to an illegal practice. Moreover, the court affirmed the City's governmental immunity from intentional torts such as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of all of Diaz's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGovernmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationDisparate DisciplineIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation
References
30
Case No. 13-10-00479-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2011

Office of the Attorney General v. Belinda Diaz

Belinda Diaz filed a lawsuit against her former employer, the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, as per the Anti-Retaliation Law. The OAG appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, contending that sovereign immunity for Diaz's claim had not been clearly and unambiguously waived by the Legislature, citing changes to the Code Construction Act. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court of Texas's holding in Kerrville State Hospital v. Fernandez, which found a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims, regardless of the Code Construction Act amendments. This decision allows Diaz's retaliatory-discharge claim to proceed.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensation claimsovereign immunityplea to the jurisdictionAnti-Retaliation LawCode Construction Actstate employeewrongful terminationstate agencyappellate jurisdiction
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02541
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Diaz v. Raveh Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Nimer Diaz, a carpenter, was injured at a construction site owned by defendant Raveh Realty, LLC, when a heavy plywood form fell and struck him. Diaz moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, which was denied by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Diaz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that the type of work being performed involved a load that required securing and that the plaintiff's injury was the foreseeable consequence of performing the task without any safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute.

Labor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Construction AccidentFalling ObjectPlywood FormSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkplace SafetyStatutory ViolationForeseeable Risk
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 14-17-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Marta Diaz

This case is an appellate review regarding a workers' compensation death benefits claim filed by Marta Diaz after her husband's work-related death. The appeal by Zurich American Insurance Co. addresses whether it waived a one-year statutory bar for filing claims and if Marta Diaz established good cause for her late filing. Justice Jewell, in this concurring and dissenting opinion, agrees with some aspects of the majority's decision but dissents on the good cause issue. He argues that Marta Diaz did not provide legally sufficient evidence of diligence or good cause for her delay. The opinion also clarifies that an insurer's failure to notify potential beneficiaries does not automatically establish good cause under Texas law, contending that judgment should be rendered for Zurich rather than remanding for trial.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsTimely FilingGood CauseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewInsurance ClaimAffirmative DefenseTollingTexas Law
References
51
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02597 [193 AD3d 640]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Diaz v. HHC TS Reit LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Diaz, a concrete worker, sustained injuries when unsecured metal conduit pipes toppled onto his head and shoulders. The incident occurred while Diaz was attempting to remove a plywood form from a space between a scaffold and a building column. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court, Bronx County's order, which had granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found unrebutted evidence that the metal pipes were not adequately secured for the purpose of the undertaking, thereby violating Labor Law § 240 (1). Additionally, the Appellate Division dismissed defendants' appeal as abandoned and noted that issues of fact regarding the ownership of the pipes precluded summary dismissal of the third-party complaint seeking contribution and common-law and contractual indemnification.

concrete worker injuryfalling object hazardscaffold safetyLabor Law 240(1)summary judgmentworkplace accidentindemnification claimcontribution claimunsecured equipmentappellate review
References
3
Case No. 14-14-01020-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2015

Mariano Diaz, Individually and A/N/F of Mariano Diaz II, a Minor Child v. Kevin Johnson, John Edward Johnson, Johnnie M. Williams, and Joe Oran Williams

M.D., a minor, suffered serious injuries. His father, Mariano Diaz, filed suit, seeking a contingency fee on a settlement. M.D.'s mother, Marie Sol Johnson, intervened as next friend, having sole legal authority. A $30,000 settlement was reached. The trial court approved the settlement but reduced Mariano's counsel's fees from 25% to $2,500 due to his failure to appear and Marie's exclusive authority. Mariano appealed the fee reduction, citing due process violations and impropriety of Marie's intervention. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no due process violation and upholding the discretion in awarding attorney's fees.

Minor's SettlementAttorney's FeesAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessNext FriendContingency FeeAppellate ReviewGuardian ad LitemInsurance Policy LimitsPersonal Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 127 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