Ahmad Naiem vs. Nordstroms, Inc., Permissibly Self-insured And Self-administered

This case involves Ahmad Naiem, a retail salesperson who claims to have sustained an industrial injury to his low back, legs, and psyche while employed by Nordstroms, Inc. The parties stipulated that Naiem first reported the injury to Nordstroms after his termination. At trial, Nordstroms requested to withdraw the issue of "good faith personnel action" and Naiem attempted to withdraw from the stipulation that his first notice to the employer occurred after his termination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Nordstroms' petition for removal and returned the case to the trial level for trial on the issue of whether Naiem's claim is barred by Labor Code sections 3208.3(e) and 36

Nordstroms, Inc., Permissibly Self-Insured and Self-Administered Ahmad Naiem WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSTATE OF CALIFORNIAAHMAD NAIEM, Applicant,vs.NORDSTROMS, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured and Self-Administered, Defendant.Case No. ADJ7472592OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR REMOVAL AND DECISION AFTER REMOVAL            Defendant has filed a timely, verified Petition for Removal, requesting that the Appeals Board reverse the Order dated June 21, 2011, wherein the workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) took this matter off calendar to allow for development of the medical evidence. Defendant contends that the WCJ has discretion to bifurcate issues and that the case should not have been taken off calendar where defendant was prepared to proceed on the issue of whether the alleged injury herein is barred by a post-termination defense. Applicant has filed an answer.            Applicant, while employed as a retail sales person from August 27, 2009, through August 27, 2010,1 claims to have sustained an industrial injury to his low back, legs and psyche.2 At a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) on February 8, 2011, the parties filed a pre-trial conference statement pursuant to Labor Code section 5502(e)(3).3 They stipulated in relevant part that applicant claimed to 22 have sustained injury to his low back, legs and psyche; that he was fired on August 27, 2010; and that he “first reported this injury to Nordstrom through his attorney post termination on Nordstrom [sic].” The 1            Applicant moved to amend the date of injury at trial on June 21, 2011, but his motion was denied.2            At trial on June 21, 2011, applicant attempted to amend his claim to allege injury to additional body parts.3            Unless otherwise specified, all statutory references are to the Labor Code. , issues identified for trial were: “A. Is the psychiatric injury claim non-compensable per Labor Code §§ 3208.3(b)(1), (c), (e) and/or (h)? B. Is [applic

To continue reading ... start a FREE Trial for 10 days

Discover the cases you didn’t know you were missing!

Copyright © 2023 - CompFox Inc.