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. ADJ6979005
Regular
Mar 13, 2012

DOMINIQUE ALLEN vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's petition for reconsideration because the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order quashing most of Nordstrom's subpoenas duces tecum was not a final order. Nordstrom sought records to investigate an alleged psyche injury, but the ALJ found its requests overbroad and not sufficiently relevant. While the ALJ quashed most subpoenas, it allowed Nordstrom to reissue narrower requests focused on the admitted knee injury and alleged psyche injury. The WCAB found no abuse of discretion, noting that discovery should be balanced with applicant's privacy rights.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OpinionSubpoena Duces Tecum (SDT)OverbroadRelevanceDue ProcessDiscoveryPsychiatric ClaimPanel Qualified Medical Evaluator
References
13
Case No. ADJ9453323
Regular
Oct 09, 2015

MARLA HARRIS vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, finding applicant was temporarily disabled through May 13, 2015. While Nordstrom denied authorization for surgery, and the IMR upheld this denial, the Board found this did not preclude temporary disability payments for self-procured treatment. The Board determined that the prior finding of permanent and stationary status was premature and remanded the case to develop the record regarding post-surgical temporary disability. Nordstrom's liability for temporary disability is separate from its obligation to authorize medical treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPermanent and StationaryRhomboid Reattachment SurgeryUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewSelf-Procured SurgeryMedical TreatmentLabor Code
References
7
Case No. ADJ9671520
Regular
Oct 18, 2019

ALICIA DAVENPORT vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Nordstrom's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the WCJ's order to take the case off calendar was not a final order. However, the WCAB granted Nordstrom's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and returned the matter for further proceedings. This action was taken because the WCJ failed to adequately address the parties' Compromise and Release agreement, specifically concerning defendant's credit for $3,500 in missed appointment fees. The WCAB indicated the parties could bifurcate the settlement or the issue of the fees would require a hearing.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardNordstromInc.Alicia DavenportPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalCompromise and Releasemissed appointment feesadministrative law judgeOrder Suspending Action
References
5
Case No. ADJ7472592
Regular
Sep 21, 2011

AHMAD NAIEM vs. NORDSTROMS, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Nordstrom, Inc., petitioned for removal after the WCJ took the case off calendar to develop medical evidence. Nordstrom argued the WCJ should have allowed bifurcation of issues, specifically addressing the post-termination defense to the applicant's injury claim. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding good cause to bifurcate the issues of whether the claim is barred by Labor Code sections 3208.3(e) and 3600(a)(10). The Board also permitted both parties to withdraw from prior stipulations regarding notice and the "good faith personnel action" defense, returning the matter to the trial level.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarMedical Evidence DevelopmentBifurcation of IssuesPost-Termination DefenseLabor Code Section 3208.3(e)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Labor Code Section 3208.3(h)Stipulation WithdrawalGood Cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Case No. ADJ7847633
Regular
Jul 25, 2013

OLGA CANNADY vs. NORDSTROMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Olga Cannady's petition for reconsideration against Nordstroms. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, exceeding the 25-day statutory deadline after the original decision date. Even if timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the administrative law judge's findings, particularly regarding credibility. The Board emphasized that timely filing is jurisdictional and they lack the power to grant untimely petitions.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Deemed filedJurisdictionalMaranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Rymer v. HaglerScott v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. ADJ6552646
Regular
Mar 26, 2014

CYNTHIA MOLINA vs. NORDSTROM, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior ruling that held the applicant responsible for medical bills incurred outside Nordstrom's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The WCAB determined that a "hold-harmless" clause in a stipulated award had no legal effect, as employers cannot assign their statutory duty to provide medical treatment. Lien claimants are subject to the WCAB's exclusive jurisdiction and can only recover from the employer under Labor Code section 4600 if the employer neglected to provide treatment. For self-procured treatment under section 4605, the employee is personally liable, and providers must pursue collection in civil court, not through WCAB liens.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardNordstrom Inc.Medical Provider NetworkStipulations with Request for AwardLabor Code Section 3751(b)Labor Code Section 4605Hold-Harmless ClauseLien ClaimsSelf-Procured TreatmentExclusive Jurisdiction
References
12
Case No. ADJ3061465 (AHM 0065352) MF ADJ327493 (AHM 0141873)
Regular
Jun 10, 2014

PATTI SUE KIEHL-COLACCHIA vs. NORDSTROM, KINECTA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a workers' compensation decision regarding overlapping injuries from two separate claims with Nordstrom and Kinecta Federal Credit Union. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior decision, and returned the cases to the trial level. This action was taken because of an apparent miscalculation of permanent disability and the need to await reporting from a newly selected Agreed Medical Evaluator. The Board ordered the two cases to be tried together after the AME report to ensure a proper record and a correct determination of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPatti Sue Kiehl-ColacchioNordstromKinecta Federal Credit UnionArgonaut Insurance CompanyADJ3061465ADJ327493ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award OrderIndustrial Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ3935687 (SDO 0341896) ADJ3919136 (SDO 0359646)
Regular
Feb 13, 2009

HEATHER CLEMMONS vs. MAY DEPARTMENT STORES, FEDERATED CLAIMS SERVICES, NORDSTROM, NORDSTROM RISK MANAGEMENT

This case concerns the defendant's liability for applicant's attorney's fees under Labor Code section 4064(c). The applicant seeks reconsideration of an order mandating the defendant pay these fees. The defendant argues they should not be liable as they did not file the application that generated the fees, nor did the applicant's attorney provide services related to the application they filed. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the defendant is liable for fees incurred by the unrepresented applicant in relation to the application *they* filed, but not for fees related to an application filed by another party. The applicant's attorney is entitled to fees for issues arising from the defendant's application, including potential apportionment of permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4064(c)attorney's feesapplication for adjudicationunrepresented employeecumulative trauma injuryNordstromapportionmentpermanent disability
References
3
Case No. ADJ10564535
Regular
May 17, 2018

DIANA ZAPATA vs. NORDSTROM

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of no injury to the applicant's back and neck. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to reject it. The applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or testimony to support claims for injuries beyond the left ankle and foot. Furthermore, the applicant's attorney did not adequately develop the record for alleged non-orthopedic injuries, despite opportunities to do so.

ADJ10564535Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Petition for Reconsideration deniedTailorbilateral kneesbackinternal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 16 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