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. 08-05-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2006

Cruz Santillan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cruz Santillan, an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart, was injured on the job and filed a worker's compensation claim. She was subsequently terminated for failing to timely re-verify her employment authorization documents (EADs) as required by the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and Wal-Mart's company policy. Santillan sued Wal-Mart for wrongful discharge, alleging that her termination was discriminatory due to her worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding that the company provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Santillan failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that Wal-Mart's stated reason was a pretext for retaliation.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment Authorization Documents (EAD)Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Employment TerminationRetaliationPretextCausal ConnectionNon-Discriminatory Reason
References
21
Case No. 08-04-00101-CV (TC# 2000-4082)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2005

Alejandro Santillan v. National Union Fire Insurance Company

Alejandro Santillan, an injured worker, appealed the trial court's grant of a "no evidence" summary judgment against him in a worker's compensation claim seeking supplemental income benefits under the Texas Labor Code. After exhausting administrative remedies and having his claim denied, he filed for judicial review. The trial court granted a second motion for summary judgment on March 31, 2004. The appellate court found the appellant's brief "woefully inadequate" for failing to comply with appellate procedure rules, specifically regarding clear issue presentation, case citations, and correct statute quotation. Consequently, the appellate court deemed the issue waived due to inadequate briefing and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureInadequate BriefingWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodeWaiverCivil ProcedureJudicial ReviewCourt of AppealsSupplemental Income Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Santillan v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cruz Santillan sued Wal-Mart for wrongful discharge, alleging discrimination after filing a worker's compensation claim. Santillan, an overnight stocker, injured her back in 2002 and filed a worker's compensation claim, returning to light duty. She was discharged twice due to her failure to timely re-verify her employment authorization documents (EADs), as required by federal law (IRCA) and Wal-Mart policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, finding a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for termination. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding Santillan failed to provide sufficient evidence that Wal-Mart's reason was a pretext for retaliation.

Wrongful dischargeWorker's compensation claimSummary judgment appealImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Employment authorization document (EAD)Non-discriminatory reasonRetaliatory motivePretext for retaliationMisconduct terminationTexas Labor Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2011

Santillan v. Henao

Plaintiff Juan Jose Santillan sought unpaid overtime wages and spread of hours pay from defendants Custom Stainless Steel Corp. and Walter Henao under the FLSA and New York Labor Law. Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) proposing a default judgment in the total amount of $60,193.42, comprising damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. Senior District Judge Block adopted the R&R without de novo review, citing the defendants' failure to object. The final judgment includes $25,213.21 in overtime wages, $3,127.90 in spread of hours pay, and a total of $15,907.83 in liquidated damages, in addition to prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, finding the defendants liable for violating wage and record-keeping provisions.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawDefault JudgmentSpread of Hours PayLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's FeesRecord-Keeping ViolationsWage Claims
References
54
Case No. ADJ4545436 (MON 0239153) ADJ2469269 (MON 0239154)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

ACELIA SANTILLAN vs. ULTIMATE STAFFING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, In Liquidation

This case involves an applicant claiming industrial injury to her back, cervical spine, and psychiatric condition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award that excluded psychiatric disability. The WCAB found that the Administrative Law Judge erred by looking behind prior stipulations and that the applicant was entitled to have her psychiatric injury assessed. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to include psychiatric disability in the permanent disability rating.

ACELIA SANTILLANULTIMATE STAFFINGCALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATIONSUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUPADJ4545436ADJ2469269WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDSTIPULATED AWARD
References
6
Case No. ADJ9412921, ADJ9412992
Regular
Dec 18, 2018

NINETTE SANTILLAN vs. GLENDALE ADVENTIST MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award regarding a lien claimant's photocopying services. The Board found the administrative law judge (WCJ) did not adequately address whether the defendant's explanations of review complied with statutory requirements for timely objections. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the matter for further proceedings to determine the validity of invoices, timely compliance with explanation of review procedures, and to address all outstanding issues. The Board emphasized that failure to lodge timely objections constitutes a waiver.

Explanation of Review (EOR)Lien ClaimantMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimLabor Code SectionsOtis v. City of Los AngelesCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10451.1Reasonable ValuePhotocopying ServicesWCJ
References
4
Case No. ADJ542238 (AHM 0147119)
Regular
May 24, 2010

ISRAEL SANTILLANES vs. PTM, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION

The defendant sought removal after their petition to dismiss the applicant's workers' compensation claim was denied. The Appeals Board denied the removal, affirming the WCJ's decision based on the defendant's failure to properly notify the applicant of the dismissal petition due to an incorrect address. While the Board disagreed with the WCJ's reasoning regarding case activation, they found the procedural defect in notice was sufficient grounds to deny dismissal. The applicant's potential incarceration also weighs against dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Petition for RemovalWCAB Rule 10582Declaration of ReadinessPetition to DismissApplication for AdjudicationFailure to ProsecuteIndustrial InjuryLower BackAbdominal HerniasPsyche
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Santillan v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

The Appellant appealed the trial court's granting of a 'no evidence' summary judgment in a worker's compensation claim seeking supplemental income benefits. The appellate court reviewed the Appellant's brief and found it to be deficient, noting a lack of clear issues, inadequate citations to authority and the record, and unsubstantial argument. Citing non-compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court concluded that the Appellant's issue was waived due to inadequate briefing. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureBriefing DeficienciesWaiver of IssueTexas Labor CodeJudicial ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsAffirmation of JudgmentTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. SAC 0357226
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

MARIA E. SANTILLAN vs. WAL-MART, Administered By FRANK GATES SERVICE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Wal-Mart's Petition for Reconsideration and denied their petition for removal. The Board found that the WCJ's order vacating a prior award was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final order subject to reconsideration. Furthermore, Wal-Mart failed to demonstrate the significant prejudice or irreparable harm required to justify the extraordinary remedy of removal.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDeny RemovalInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityExtraordinary RemedyPrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
7
Case No. ADJ8296879
Regular
Oct 26, 2016

JUANA SANTILLAN vs. D'ARIGGO BROTHERS COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinding a prior ruling that awarded a lien claimant additional payment. While the lien claim was not barred by statute of limitations and the defendant was not entitled to reimbursement for prior payments, the Appeals Board found the lien claimant failed to present sufficient evidence. Specifically, the claimant did not establish that services were billed to the defendant or that the billed amounts were reasonable. Therefore, the lien claimant was awarded nothing further on its lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and OrderLien ClaimStatute of LimitationsLabor Code section 4604.524 visit capLabor Code section 4903.5Self-authenticating documentWCJ Report and Recommendation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11 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