Law Offices of Douglas G. Mackay

What they litigate

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

• Apportionment2
• Death benefits1
• Earnings / average weekly earnings1
• Jurisdiction / venue1
• Permanent disability rating1
• Penalties under Labor Code §58141

Where they appear

• Santa Rosa 3
• Lodi 2
• Fresno 1
• Sacramento 1
• San Jose 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.

• 5 for the applicant
• 2 for the defense

Counted over 7 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.

• ADJ11987597 · 2026-04-28 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6A. The burden of proving apportionment of permanent disability falls on the employer because it is the employer that benefits from apportionment. (Benson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1535, 1560 [74 Cal.Comp.Cases 113]; Kopping v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1229]; Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604, 612 (Appeals Board en banc).) In Escobedo the Appeals Board held: (1) section 4663 requires the reporting physician to make an apportionment determination; (2) apportionment to other factors allows apportionment to causation, including pathology, prior conditions, and retroactive work restrictions; (3) applicant holds the initial burden to prove industrial injury and also has the added burden of establishing the approximate percentage of permanent disability directly related to the industrial injury; (4) defendant has the burden of establishing the approximate permanent disability caused by other factors; and (5) a medical report addressing apportionment may not be relied upon unless it constitutes substantial evidence. (Escobedo, supra, at p. 607.)

  The Appeals Board found that the AME's apportionment opinions were not substantial evidence due to lack of reasoning, but ultimately credited the AME's approximate apportionment percentages as meeting the burden of proof for defendant, leading to a grant of reconsideration and amendment of the award to 72% permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17538139 · 2025-12-26 · Santa Rosa District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.8In light of the scant evidentiary record, combined with the errors in the Opinion on Decision (see Report, p. 2, fn. 2.), we return this matter to the trial level to develop the record on all the factors that would be relevant in determining applicant's earning capacity. (Lab. Code, § 5701,

  The record was insufficient to conclusively determine applicant's full-time status and earnings history; the matter was returned for further development of the record on earning capacity.

  Official decision · page 8 →
• ADJ15505677 · 2024-12-30 · Santa Rosa District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the August 12, 2021 Findings and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker on October 8, 2018, sustained industrial injury to his neck, mid-back (thoracic spine) and lower back (lumbar spine). The WCA found that applicant successfully rebutted the scheduled rating under the Permanent Disability Ratings Schedule (PDRS) and was permanently and totally disabled without apportionment.

  The WCA's findings and the Appeals Board's review found substantial medical evidence supporting applicant's permanent and total disability based on non-feasibility for vocational rehabilitation, rejecting defendant's apportionment arguments due to lack of substantial evidence.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10085912 · 2024-03-19 · Lodi District OfficeJurisdiction / venuemixed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Hampshire Insurance Company seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact & Order (F&O) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on May 2, 2023, wherein the WCJ found that defendant Zurich America Insurance Company's petition for contribution was timely, except as to the award of temporary disability benefits in the Stipulation and Award of February 16, 2016.

  The petition for contribution was timely except as to temporary disability indemnity and medical treatment with Dr. Immerman from the February 16, 2016 Stipulations and Award, based on the case law requiring petitions within one year of the award.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ17444677 · 2024-03-08 · Santa Rosa District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.6The crux of petitioner's argument is that the undersigned WCJ should have relied upon Dr. Bell's QME reports instead of Dr. McCoy's QME reports because Dr. Bell's reports constitute substantial medical evidence and Dr. McCoy's do not. Petition, page 1, lines 24 thru 26; page 2, lines] thru 2. However, Petitioner incorrectly states that the undersigned WCJ found Dr. Bell's reports "non substantial medical evidence with regard to causation." Petition, page 4, lines 19 thru 23. There was no such finding by the WCJ. The undersigned WCJ only found Dr. McCoy's reporting to be more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reporting, not that Dr. Bell's reporting was not substantial medical evidence.

  The WCJ found Dr. McCoy's medical reports to be substantial medical evidence and more persuasive than Dr. Bell's reports, supporting the apportionment and permanent disability findings.

  Official decision · page 6 →
• ADJ17674058 · 2024-11-13 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Absent same, we are unable to determine if good cause to take the case off calendar exists at this juncture due to a lack of an adequate record. Therefore, we must rescind the Order and return this matter to the calendar for a status conference for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  Removal is warranted because the WCJ took the case off calendar without making a record or providing a basis for the decision, resulting in substantial prejudice and irreparable harm to applicant; the record was inadequate to support the order.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ12803585 · 2024-07-25 · Fresno District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A) dated April 22, 2024, and issued on May 1, 2024, wherein the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant has permanent disability as found by qualified medical evaluator (QME) Dr. Deshmukh for the cervical spine, and by QME Dr. Bhatia for the left upper extremity, with a combined rating of 59% after adjustment for age and occupation; and applicant has "further permanent disability determined by Paul Stanford... resulting in a 100% permanent disability" and the reports were determined to be substantial evidence; and that the reports of Scott Simon were determined not to be substantial evidence.1

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Findings and Award lacked substantial evidence due to incomplete vocational expert report review by QMEs, requiring further development of the record consistent with recent en banc decisions.

  Official decision · page 1 →

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.

• LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY
• Law Offices of Douglas G. Mackay
• LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS G. MACKAY
• LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS MACKAY
• Law Office of Douglas Mackay
• LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS MACKAY

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.