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. 03-96-00415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Beverly De La Zerda and Rudy De La Zerda

The Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appealed a judgment concerning a personal injury suit. Appellee Beverly de la Zerda, a state employee, and Rudy de la Zerda, sued Americlean Concepts after Beverly sustained injuries at work. Following a settlement between the de la Zerdas and Americlean, the trial court issued a final take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the de la Zerdas moved to allocate the settlement proceeds, a proposal objected to by the Division, which asserted its subrogation interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Division's petition to intervene was untimely as the original final judgment had not been set aside.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJurisdictionInterventionFinal JudgmentSettlement AllocationSubrogationAppellate ProcedureTimelinessLien
References
6
Case No. 11-19-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Basic Energy Services, L.P. and Basic Energy Services GP, LLC. The De La Rosas alleged intentional injuries to Pedro during a work-related truck accident and subsequent medical interference, plus Angelina's loss of consortium. The Eleventh Court of Appeals determined that the Appellants' claims fell under the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also clarified that election of remedies is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.R. Beadel and Co. v. De La Garza

Joe De La Garza was severely injured while operating a forklift, loading pallets of meat into a truck owned by J.R. Beadel & Company, driven by Everett Lemond. Lemond, believing the loading was complete, drove the truck away from the dock while De La Garza was still inside with the forklift, causing him to fall. De La Garza recovered a judgment in a negligence action, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that De La Garza had no duty to anticipate Lemond's negligent actions and that evidence of workers' compensation benefits, which had ceased prior to trial, was properly excluded for impeachment purposes.

NegligenceForklift AccidentProper LookoutContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEvidence AdmissibilityImpeachmentDuty to AnticipatePersonal InjuryThird-Party Tort-feasor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Concha v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Fuente v. Home Savings Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal regarding a suit on a note for aluminum siding installation services. Appellants Pedro and Paula de la Fuente argued violations of the Texas Consumer Credit Code and the Home Solicitation Sales Act against appellee Home Savings, the assignee of the contract. The appellate court found that the contract unlawfully provided for a first lien on the de la Fuentes' residence and that the note was assigned to a third party on the same day it was executed, violating the Home Solicitation Sales Act. Consequently, the contract was deemed void and unenforceable. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, ruling in favor of the de la Fuentes and awarding them $4,000 plus $3,500 in attorney's fees.

Consumer Credit LawHome Solicitation SalesPromissory NoteContract DisputeUnlawful LienHolder in Due Course DoctrineAssignee LiabilityAttorney's Fees AwardContract EnforceabilityRetail Installment Contract
References
40
Case No. 11-06-00146-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Oscar Pena De La Paz v. State of Texas

Oscar Pena De La Paz was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and one count of injury to a child. His conviction was initially affirmed but then reversed and remanded by the Court of Criminal Appeals for a harm analysis regarding erroneously admitted hospital records. These records contained statements from the child victim to a social worker and nurse, implicating De La Paz. On remand, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that despite the error in admitting the records, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the State's overall case, De La Paz's suspicious behavior, and his questionable credibility. The court also rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Criminal LawAppellate ReviewHarm AnalysisConfrontation ClauseChild AbuseSexual AssaultIneffective Assistance of CounselEvidence AdmissibilityTexas Court of AppealsRemand
References
8
Case No. 13-06-00692-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2009

Wackenhut Corrections Corporation and Warden David Forrest v. Gregorio De La Rosa, Sr.

An inmate, Gregorio de la Rosa, Jr., was beaten to death by fellow prisoners at a facility operated by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, with officers allegedly failing to intervene. His family sued Wackenhut and Warden David Forrest for negligence and gross negligence. A jury awarded actual and punitive damages to the family. On appeal, the court affirmed the core findings of negligence, gross negligence, and most damage awards. However, it reversed the award to the estate of Gregorio de la Rosa, Sr. due to lack of standing and dismissed the $7,000 funeral expenses for lack of proven reasonableness. The appellate court upheld the significant punitive damages, finding Wackenhut waived its right to a statutory cap and that the award was constitutionally sound given the reprehensibility of the conduct and spoliation of evidence.

Prison NegligenceInmate AssaultWrongful DeathGross NegligencePunitive DamagesSpoliation of EvidenceAppellate ReviewForeseeabilityProximate CauseDamage Cap Waiver
References
121
Case No. 13-00-785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Josephine De La Garza v. George H. Beckett

Appellant Josephine De La Garza appealed a jury verdict awarding her personal injury damages resulting from an automobile accident. She raised five issues on appeal, including alleged errors in limiting voir dire, refusing expert witness testimony, denying a jury instruction regarding the transportation code, and challenging the factual and legal sufficiency of medical damages and comparative responsibility findings. She also contested the denial of her motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the voir dire limits, that the expert witness error was not preserved, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on damages and comparative responsibility.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryVoir Dire LimitationExpert Witness ExclusionMedical Damages SufficiencyJury Instruction ErrorNegligence Per SeComparative ResponsibilityMotion for New TrialAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 05-04-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

Oscar Luis Lopez v. LA MADELEINE OF TEXAS

This case involves an appeal by Oscar Luis Lopez against La Madeleine of Texas, Inc., following a personal injury lawsuit where Lopez alleged negligence. During the trial, La Madeleine introduced a surveillance videotape and photos to impeach Lopez's testimony about his injuries, despite intentionally failing to disclose this evidence during discovery. The trial court admitted the evidence, leading to a jury finding of no negligence against La Madeleine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed the trial court's final judgment, ruling that the admission of the undisclosed evidence was an abuse of discretion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates exclusion without good cause or lack of unfair surprise/prejudice. The court found La Madeleine failed to meet its burden and the error probably caused an improper judgment. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Lopez's motion for monetary sanctions. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Discovery AbuseUndisclosed EvidenceTrial by AmbushTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6Unfair SurpriseUnfair PrejudiceAbuse of DiscretionEvidentiary RulingPersonal InjuryNegligence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. De La Cruz

This worker's compensation suit involves Yolanda De La Cruz (appellee) and National Union Fire Insurance Company (appellant). Appellee, a meat slicer and packer, sustained multiple hand injuries, leading to her termination after a March 1985 injury. The jury found her 1985 injuries caused total and permanent loss of use of both hands, but also determined that prior injuries from 1978 and 1983 contributed 100% to this loss. The trial court disregarded the jury's findings on prior contributions. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the insurer was entitled to questions regarding prior injury contributions and that the jury's conflicting answers could not be reconciled.

Worker's CompensationCumulative TraumaPrior Injury ContributionPermanent DisabilityJury FindingsJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawHand InjuryMedical Testimony
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,559 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