Albert and Mackenzie

What they litigate

Disputed issues across the decisions this firm is named in. Every row opens the decisions it counts.

Where they appear

• Van Nuys 18
• Oakland 10
• Los Angeles 8
• Marina del Rey 8
• Anaheim 7
• Long Beach 5
• Riverside 5
• Sacramento 5
• San Luis Obispo 5
• Santa Ana 5
• Lodi 4
• Pomona 4

How the appealed decisions came out

These are decisions that were appealed and published — the tail of a system that mostly settles. Most claims end in a compromise and release or a stipulation and never reach a panel, so nothing below describes how this firm does its work. It describes how a set of appealed disputes came out.

• 55 for the defense
• 42 for the applicant
• 11 returned for more record

Counted over 105 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work. A decision that went one way on one issue and the other way on another is counted in both columns, so the figures add up to more than the total.

Decisions

Newest decisions this firm is named in, each with the passage the panel turned on and a link to the official PDF.

• ADJ11186589 · 2026-06-18 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Lien claimant Ameri Chiropractic (lien claimant) seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order (F&O) of May 10, 2021, wherein it was found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the neck, arm, wrist, and back pursuant to the prior Findings & Order of April 12, 2019; that lien claimant is not entitled to any payments pursuant to Labor Code1 section 5402(c) as it failed to establish when the claim form was supplied to the employer by applicant or when the employer had knowledge of the injury alleged herein from any other source; that the services provided by lien claimant were self-procured medical expenses and defendant is not liable for reimbursement of those expenses; that lien claimant failed to establish any basis for reimbursement of the lien claim; and there is no basis to award costs to defendant or impose sanctions on lien claimant.

  The WCJ and the Board found no injury arising out of and in the course of employment based on the evidence and prior Findings and Order.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12378634 · 2026-03-05 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration1 of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued on January 31, 2022 wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found, in relevant part, that applicant failed to prove that she sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her back, neck, hands, right upper extremity, left arm, and shoulders while employed by defendant as a housekeeper during the period June 29, 2018 to June 29, 2019; and that the alleged injury is not compensable as it was not reported "until subsequent to Applicant's termination" and applicant had not demonstrated that any "of the exceptions listed under Labor Code2 section 3600(a)(10)" applied herein. The WCJ thus ordered applicant "[a] take nothing on her application" and held that "no compensation would be owed, even if such injuries had occurred."

  The WCJ's denial of injury AOE/COE was based on lack of evidence of termination date and failure to prove post-termination exceptions. The WCAB found the record incomplete and requiring further development, including determination of date of injury under section 5412 and review of medical records.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17517591 · 2026-03-03 · Oakland District OfficePermanent total disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Award of November 14, 2025, wherein it was found that while employed on June 26, 2021 as a handyman, applicant sustained industrial injury to his right knee, right leg, left hip, and low back causing permanent total (100%) disability. as a maintenance technician, applicant sustained industrial injury to the right hand, right arm, and psyche, causing permanent total (100%) disability. In finding permanent total disability, the WCJ relied on the reporting of vocational expert Frank P. Diaz, who opined that applicant's industrial injury precluded applicant from vocational rehabilitation or from employment in the open labor market.

  The WCJ's findings of permanent total disability were supported by substantial medical evidence from Dr. Anderson and vocational expert Frank Diaz, whose reports were found credible and compliant with regulatory requirements. Defendant's due process argument for a rebuttal vocational report was rejected as untimely and unsupported.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17097194 · 2026-02-23 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 25, 2025, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his head and lumbar spine; that applicant was intoxicated at the time of injury and that his intoxication was a proximate and substantial cause of the injury; and ordered that applicant take nothing.

  The WCJ found applicant intoxicated and that intoxication was a proximate cause of injury, but the WCAB found evidentiary deficiencies including exclusion of key witness testimony, incomplete medical records for the AME, and lack of applicant testimony on pre-injury vertigo, requiring remand for further development of causation evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ20798821 · 2026-02-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeQME/AME processdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order Regarding Validity of QME Panel Number 7821226 (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on November 14, 2025, wherein the WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant, while employed by defendant, on February 28, 2025, as a compounding lead, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the head, facial fracture, nasal fracture, collar bone, ribs, and claims injury to the eyes, ears, neck, chest, shoulder, abdomen, back, right arm, right elbow, right wrist, legs, memory loss, and psyche (ADJ20798822); that applicant, while employed by defendant, during the period August 30, 2023 to August 30, 2024, as a compounding lead, claims injury AOE/COE to the neck, back, shoulder, wrists, legs, knees, heels, feet, dry skin, dry eyes, gastrointestinal pain, hearing loss, lungs, and psyche (ADJ20798821); and that Qualified Medical Evaluation (QME) Panel 7821226 is valid and overruled applicant's objection to that panel.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12735589 · 2026-01-22 · Pomona District OfficeStatute of limitationsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact (Findings) issued on January 7, 2022, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that pursuant to Labor Code section 54052, applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits was time-barred, whereby resulting in her taking nothing from her claims filed herein.

  The WCJ found the employer met its duty to provide a claim form and notice, and the applicant filed the claim more than one year after the injury, so the claim is time-barred under section 5405 without equitable tolling.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ13479589 · 2025-12-16 · Redding District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Defendant argues in the Petition that Dr. Kyle did not waive the January 17, 2018 procedure due to an "Employee Courtesy," but only after applicant informed him about a suspected injury. (Defendant's Petition, at p. 5.) However, defendant put forth no evidence, including any witness testimony by Dr. Kyle, to support this argument. In contrast, a review of applicant's account history actually shows applicant's copays were waived throughout her employment. (Joint Exhibit UU, at pp. 6-7.) Therefore, we conclude that applicant demonstrated that her injury was AOE/COE.

  Applicant demonstrated injury AOE/COE to teeth based on the personal comfort doctrine and substantial medical evidence from QME Dr. Scorza; injury to other body parts deferred for further development.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ13445593 · 2025-11-10 · Marina del Rey District OfficePenalties under Labor Code §5814applicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.15"The judge is asked whether Defendant unreasonably rejected liability for the heart. The answer is yes. It was unreasonable for Defendant to not timely authorize the CT angiogram. It was unreasonable for Defendant to issue a written denial of the heart in the middle of the PQME 's investigation. It was also unreasonable for Defendant to perform an overall underwhelming investigation despite their duty to do so under the law.

  The judge found Defendant unreasonably rejected liability for the heart injury by denying the claim in writing during the ongoing PQME investigation and failing to timely authorize necessary diagnostic testing, violating Labor Code Section 5814.3.

  Official decision · page 15 →
• ADJ16367723 · 2025-10-20 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdeferred

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant and defendant each seek reconsideration of a workers' compensation administrative law judge's (WCJ) Findings and Order of August 1, 2025, wherein it was found that "applicant did not sustain industrial injury to her circulatory system, nervous system, head, or brain as a result of an alleged February 18, 2022 specific injury or an alleged cumulative trauma injury from November 1, 2005 through February 15, 2022." It appears that the above claimed body parts encompass those involved in a February 18, 2022 stroke. The parties had stipulated that applicant claimed a specific February 18, 2022 injury to her "circulatory system, nervous system, respiratory system, head, brain, chemical exposure, right fingers, right hand, right arm, excretory system, right leg, right ankle, right foot, and right toes while working as a Press Operator/Assembler for TrafFix Devices, Inc.

  The WCJ found no industrial injury in the form of stroke, but the Appeals Board deferred this issue for further development of the record to avoid piecemeal findings and to have a single final decision on all body parts and legal defenses.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10173387 · 2025-09-22 · Van Nuys District OfficeSerious and willful misconductdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3The second finding of fact, that applicant was not injured by reason of any serious and willful misconduct of the employer defendant, Recess Holdings/First Group, is based on the vehicle inspection report admitted without objection as Defendant's Exhibit II, and applicant's testimony describing that report and her inspection and use of the vehicle that she was driving on the morning of her awarded work injury of August 30, 2015. According to the report, although there was an electrical short in the vehicle the previous day, the mechanic had said the vehicle was "OK TO DRIVE." Applicant and her employer were both equally justified in relying upon this representation in the report in assuming that the vehicle was safe to operate. This assumption proved

  The employer was justified in relying on a mechanic's inspection report that the vehicle was safe to drive, and there was no evidence of willful misconduct by a supervisory person with knowledge of the risk. Applicant did not meet the burden to show serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ11150106 · 2025-07-15 · San Francisco District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6Here, in a report dated September 11, 2023, orthopedic PQME, Dr. D'Amico, indicated that with respect to applicant's alleged neurological issues, he could not provide a specific diagnosis. (Defense Exhibit A, p. 23.) As such, he recommended a "repeat EMG/nerve velocity study of both upper and lower extremities" as well as a "neurologic consultation." (Id. at p. 24.) Thereafter, a timely petition requesting additional panels in various specialties, including neurology, was submitted by applicant on August 23, 2024.

  Dr. D'Amico could not provide a specific diagnosis for neurological issues and recommended further studies; good cause found for additional neurology panel.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ16305170 · 2025-06-30 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11In conjunction with applicant's credible testimony, the WCJ relied on the substantial opinions of Dr. Sirakoff to make findings. "According to the primary treating physician and the applicant's credible testimony, the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury while performing the above job duties. There is substantial evidence to support a finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment to the neck and back due to a cumulative trauma injury while working at Telecare Corporation as an LVN." (Report, page 5.)

  Applicant's credible testimony and substantial medical evidence from Dr. Sirakoff established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back; PQME Dr. Bernicker's opinion was not substantial evidence due to reliance on incorrect legal theory and inadequate medical history.

  Official decision · page 11 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• ALBERT AND MACKENZIE
• ALBERT & MACKENZIE
• Albert and Mackenzie
• Albert & Mackenzie
• ALBERT AND MACKENZIE, LLP
• ALBERT & MACKENZIE, LLP
• Albert & Mackenzie, LLP
• ALBERT & MACKENZIE COMPENSATION LAW
• LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT & MACKENZIE
• LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT & MACKENZIE
• ALBERT MACKENZIE LAW
• Albert Mackenzie Law

Is this your firm and something here is wrong? Tell us and we will fix it. Every figure on this page is a count of released decisions this firm is named in, and the decisions themselves are listed above with the passage each turned on.