California WCABLaw firm

Pacific Attorney Group

Pacific Attorney Group is named in 16 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to QME/AME process (2), Permanent disability rating (2) and AOE/COE (1). They were heard most often at Oakland, then Sacramento. The firm it meets most often is Hanna, Brophy, MacLean, McAleer & Jensen (3).

Decisions: 16
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 5
District offices: 8

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 10 agree. It is our reading of the record, not the firm’s description of itself.

What they litigate

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

By disputed issue

Decisions naming this firm, counted by what was in dispute.

7 decisions across the groups shown

Who they face

1 more firms appear in the same decisions and are not listed: we could not read which side they were on.

Carriers and administrators

Where they appear

Oakland 8
Sacramento 2
Eureka 1
San Diego 1
San Francisco 1
Santa Ana 1
Santa Rosa 1
Stockton 1

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.

8 for the defense
5 for the applicant
1 returned for more record

Counted over 14 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ17939202 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdeferred
Determinative passage · p.7As stated in the Court's written opinion, "The court finds it appropriate to award indemnity based upon the applicant's actual lost wages during the period of her incapacity, as the wages earned during the year prior to her injury no longer reflect her true earning capacity. However, the current evidentiary record is insufficient to determine her exact earnings at that time. Applicant's reliance on the pay statement history at page 56 of Applicant's Exhibit 25, while noted, is not substantial as it is unclear as to what exact periods these payments covered. This sole issue is deferred upon further development of the record. The parties are encouraged to informally resolve this issue with jurisdiction reserved." (Opinion on Decision)
The court found that the applicant's actual lost wages during incapacity should be used, but the record was insufficient to determine exact earnings. Determination of Average Weekly Wage was deferred with jurisdiction reserved.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ11880536 · 2025-08-01 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded
Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION
The WCAB found the WCJ's Findings and Order lacked sufficient findings on key issues such as the size of the recovery, amount of credit, and whether the credit is immediately allowable, and found the WCJ's reliance on the defense expert's comparative negligence report flawed. The WCAB rescinded the F&O and remanded for further proceedings to clarify these issues and develop the record further.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16452926 · 2025-05-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.
The WCJ and WCAB panel found the opinion of Dr. Stoller to be substantial evidence supporting a 28% permanent disability rating with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the medical evidence and apportionment.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ14929760 · 2024-01-24 · Sacramento District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ determined that there is insufficient medical evidence upon which the threshold issue of causation may be determined. (Report, p. 3.) Where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue, the WCJ has a duty to further develop the record. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McClune) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 404 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924].) The WCJ has the authority to order additional medical evidence when required for substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 504, 508 (writ den.); McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc); McClune, supra.)
The WCJ found insufficient medical evidence on causation and ordered the additional QME panel to develop the record. The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant and upheld the order.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ17366311 · 2024-01-08 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4In circumstances such as this, where a party has failed to comply with the required rules of service for panel QME requests and omitted required documents, we conclude that the procurement of Panel #7578289 was not proper and is therefore invalid, and that, absent removal, applicant will suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. Thus, reconsideration is hereby granted and we find that Panel #7578289 is invalidated for failure to comply with Rule 30(b)(1)(C). We will otherwise affirm the findings of fact determined by the WCJ.
The panel was invalidated because defendant failed to properly serve the required documents by mail as mandated by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C), causing substantial prejudice to applicant.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13448644 · 2022-05-31 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.
The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and relied on the PQME Dr. Wolfson's report, which matched the applicant's injury mechanism, to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ17477426 · 2025-07-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the petition and the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration, dismiss reconsideration as premature, and return this matter to the trial level so that applicant's petition can be treated as a Petition to Set Aside.
The petition for reconsideration was premature because the record was insufficient to evaluate applicant's contentions, and the matter should be returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16278621 · 2025-04-15 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on October 9, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.
The petition was rendered moot by the parties' Compromise & Release agreement while the petition was pending.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ16905183 · 2025-04-03 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 24, 2025 Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case (NIT) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The NIT indicated that an order of dismissal would issue without prejudice within 20 days of service of the NIT unless good cause was shown in writing by applicant as to why her case should not be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was premature because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss was not a final order and the defendant's petition for dismissal was filed prematurely before the expiration of the required notice period.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ13788787 · 2024-03-06 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the minute order taking this matter off calendar (OTOC) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 21, 2023.
The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order taking the matter off calendar was non-final and granted removal to issue sanctions for bad faith filing and misrepresentations by defendant's attorney and law firm.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17574665 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the "Petition for Reconsideration (or in the Alternative- Petition for Removal Per LC § 5310 and CCR § 10955)" and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The petition challenged an interlocutory finding regarding the adequacy of the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and the Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, thus denying the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11716474 · 2022-12-29 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact and Order on September 19, 2022. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, October 14, 2022 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on November 4, 2022 is untimely and must be dismissed.
The petition for reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline, depriving the Board of jurisdiction to consider it.
Official decision · page 2 →

Also recorded as

The same firm is printed several ways across the decisions, and all of them were counted as one. This is every spelling behind the figures above.

PACIFIC WORKERS
PACIFIC ATTORNEY GROUP
PACIFIC WORKERS' COMPENSATION LAW
Pacific Attorney Group
Pacific Workers'
PACIFIC WORKERS'
Pacific Workers

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.

Also on this

Private workspace

Your case already resembles someone else’s. Find whose.

Paste the dispute. The extractor builds the factors, the search finds the decisions the same facts won, and the matter stays saved. Free account.

Start a matter Search without an account →

Pacific Attorney Group

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

What they litigate

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

How the appealed decisions came out

8 for the defense

5 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 14 appealed decisions. Not this firm’s book of work.

Decisions

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

ADJ17939202 · 2026-01-12 · Santa Rosa District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdeferred

Determinative passage · p.7As stated in the Court's written opinion, "The court finds it appropriate to award indemnity based upon the applicant's actual lost wages during the period of her incapacity, as the wages earned during the year prior to her injury no longer reflect her true earning capacity. However, the current evidentiary record is insufficient to determine her exact earnings at that time. Applicant's reliance on the pay statement history at page 56 of Applicant's Exhibit 25, while noted, is not substantial as it is unclear as to what exact periods these payments covered. This sole issue is deferred upon further development of the record. The parties are encouraged to informally resolve this issue with jurisdiction reserved." (Opinion on Decision)

The court found that the applicant's actual lost wages during incapacity should be used, but the record was insufficient to determine exact earnings. Determination of Average Weekly Wage was deferred with jurisdiction reserved.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ11880536 · 2025-08-01 · Oakland District OfficeApportionmentremanded

Determinative passage · p.1OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATION

The WCAB found the WCJ's Findings and Order lacked sufficient findings on key issues such as the size of the recovery, amount of credit, and whether the credit is immediately allowable, and found the WCJ's reliance on the defense expert's comparative negligence report flawed. The WCAB rescinded the F&O and remanded for further proceedings to clarify these issues and develop the record further.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16452926 · 2025-05-19 · Oakland District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4By a timely and verified Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) filed on March 3, 2025, defendant seeks reconsideration of my February 11, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein I found, among other things, that applicant, while employed during the cumulative trauma period from June 13, 2012 through July 7, 2022 as a caregiver in California, by Aegis Senior Communities, LLC, sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment to her right wrist and thumb and fingers, and that applicant's injury caused permanent disability of 28%. In doing so, I relied upon the opinion of the primary treating physician, Dr. Adam Stoller.

The WCJ and WCAB panel found the opinion of Dr. Stoller to be substantial evidence supporting a 28% permanent disability rating with 25% apportionment to non-industrial ligamentous laxity, rejecting the defendant's challenges to the medical evidence and apportionment.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ14929760 · 2024-01-24 · Sacramento District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Here, the WCJ determined that there is insufficient medical evidence upon which the threshold issue of causation may be determined. (Report, p. 3.) Where there is insufficient evidence on a threshold issue, the WCJ has a duty to further develop the record. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; McClune v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (McClune) (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1121-1122 [63 Cal.Comp.Cases 261]; Kuykendall v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 396, 404 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 264]; Tyler v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 389, 394 [62 Cal.Comp.Cases 924].) The WCJ has the authority to order additional medical evidence when required for substantial evidence. (Lab. Code, § 5701, 5906; Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2020) 85 Cal.Comp.Cases 504, 508 (writ den.); McDuffie v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (2001) 67 Cal.Comp.Cases 138 (Appeals Board en banc); McClune, supra.)

The WCJ found insufficient medical evidence on causation and ordered the additional QME panel to develop the record. The WCAB found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to defendant and upheld the order.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ17366311 · 2024-01-08 · Oakland District OfficeQME/AME processapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4In circumstances such as this, where a party has failed to comply with the required rules of service for panel QME requests and omitted required documents, we conclude that the procurement of Panel #7578289 was not proper and is therefore invalid, and that, absent removal, applicant will suffer substantial prejudice and irreparable harm. Thus, reconsideration is hereby granted and we find that Panel #7578289 is invalidated for failure to comply with Rule 30(b)(1)(C). We will otherwise affirm the findings of fact determined by the WCJ.

The panel was invalidated because defendant failed to properly serve the required documents by mail as mandated by AD Rule 30(b)(1)(C), causing substantial prejudice to applicant.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13448644 · 2022-05-31 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Applicant's testimony matches the mechanism of injury in Dr. Wolfson's report as well as in Dr. Nkadi's reporting. Although there are other mechanisms of injury noted in other reports this does not completely undermine applicant's credibility. Based upon Dr. Wolfsons reporting and applicant's testimony it is found that applicant sustained an industrial injury to her left shoulder on July 12, 2020.

The WCJ found the applicant's testimony credible and relied on the PQME Dr. Wolfson's report, which matched the applicant's injury mechanism, to find an industrial injury despite inconsistent histories in other reports.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ17477426 · 2025-07-28 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalnot_reached

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the petition and the record in this matter. For the reasons discussed below, we will treat applicant's petition as one seeking reconsideration, dismiss reconsideration as premature, and return this matter to the trial level so that applicant's petition can be treated as a Petition to Set Aside.

The petition for reconsideration was premature because the record was insufficient to evaluate applicant's contentions, and the matter should be returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16278621 · 2025-04-15 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removalmoot

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that while this matter was pending on removal, the parties entered into a Compromise & Release. Therefore, the Petition for Removal in response to the decision issued on October 9, 2024 is moot, and it will be dismissed.

The petition was rendered moot by the parties' Compromise & Release agreement while the petition was pending.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ16905183 · 2025-04-03 · San Diego District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the January 24, 2025 Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case (NIT) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The NIT indicated that an order of dismissal would issue without prejudice within 20 days of service of the NIT unless good cause was shown in writing by applicant as to why her case should not be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was premature because the Notice of Intention to Dismiss was not a final order and the defendant's petition for dismissal was filed prematurely before the expiration of the required notice period.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ13788787 · 2024-03-06 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration and/or removal of the minute order taking this matter off calendar (OTOC) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on December 21, 2023.

The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as the order taking the matter off calendar was non-final and granted removal to issue sanctions for bad faith filing and misrepresentations by defendant's attorney and law firm.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17574665 · 2023-10-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the "Petition for Reconsideration (or in the Alternative- Petition for Removal Per LC § 5310 and CCR § 10955)" and the contents of the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) with respect thereto. Based on our review of the record, and based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of the petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The petition challenged an interlocutory finding regarding the adequacy of the Medical Provider Network (MPN), and the Appeals Board found no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, thus denying the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11716474 · 2022-12-29 · San Francisco District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.2In this case, the WCJ issued the Findings of Fact and Order on September 19, 2022. Based on the authority cited above, applicant had until Friday, October 14, 2022 to file a timely Petition for Reconsideration. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration filed on November 4, 2022 is untimely and must be dismissed.

The petition for reconsideration was filed after the statutory deadline, depriving the Board of jurisdiction to consider it.

Official decision · page 2 →