California WCABLaw firm

Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley

Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to Permanent disability rating (5), AOE/COE (2) and Cumulative trauma (2). They were heard most often at Sacramento, then Stockton. The firm it meets most often is Coleman, Chavez & Associates (1).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 8
District offices: 2

Applicant sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 9 of 9 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.

Who they face

2 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

Sacramento 11
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.

9 for the applicant
2 for the defense
2 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ21172307 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Liability for workers' compensation accrues for an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a).) Injuries sustained while an employee is "going and coming" to and from the place of employment do not normally arise out of and in the course of employment because the employee is neither providing benefit to the employer nor under the control of the employer during that commute. (Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 351§ 352 [1985 Cal. LEXIS 410]; Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) "[T]he going and coming rule applies when the employee is commuting between his home and work or, as Hinojosa characterizes it, it applies to a `local commute enroute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours.' (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 157.)" (Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1038 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)
The WCJ and the Board found that the injury occurred during the applicant's regular commute and did not fall within any exceptions to the going and coming rule, including the zone of employment or special risk exceptions, and thus the claim was barred.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Applicant was evaluated by Nicole Chitnis, M.D. as a "regular physician" per Labor Code § 5701 in the specialty of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Dr. Chitnis examined Applicant on July 8, 2019 (report dated August 7, 2019), August 8, 2022 (report dated August 31, 2022), April 11, 2023 (report dated April 15, 2023), November 7, 2023 (report dated November 11, 2023), and February 12, 2025 (report dated February 16, 2025) (Joint Exhibits 11, 8, 7, 5, and 4). Dr. Chitnis issued three supplemental reports dated April 2, 2020, February 20, 2021, July 4, 2023 (Joint Exhibit 10, 9 and 6). Dr. Chitnis was deposed on three separate occasions: October 19, 2019, May 22, 2024, and August 20, 2025 (Joint Exhibit 14, 13 and 12).
The WCJ and panel found Dr. Chitnis' opinion substantial evidence supporting 100% permanent total disability, with addition of impairments per Kite and Vigil rather than combined values chart (CVC).
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ12916393 · 2024-12-03 · Sacramento District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded
Determinative passage · p.6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.
No findings were made on the cumulative trauma claim; reconsideration granted to establish a proper record on this issue.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ16468538 · 2023-10-09 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.8As the QME, Dr. Jacks performed a psychiatric evaluation and consultation with psychological testing and interview. Dr. Jacks found impairment and a GAF score of 58, which is 18% WPI. Regarding apportionment, Dr. Jacks describes Applicant's history which includes marital problems and a divorce in 2015. Applicant was put on Lexapro and Ambien. Dr. Jacks opines this earlier breakdown with anxiety and depression made Applicant more vulnerable for a later breakdown and probably explains the extent of his reactions and current problems at work. Dr. Jacks indicates Applicant was divorced again in 2019 around the time of the claimed work difficulties. Dr. Jacks finds the divorce probably caused factors of permanent disability. Dr. Jacks indicates Applicant's sister died in 2018 and his father died in 2020. Dr. Jacks highlights prior panic attacks in 2013 and 2015 and explains that panic attacks can relapse. Dr. Jacks finds but for the preexisting and personal nonindustrial stress, the disability would not be as great. Dr. Jacks apportions 30% to preexisting and personal nonindustrial stressors and 70% to work stress. (Joint Exhibit AA)
Dr. Jacks' evaluation and apportionment of 70% industrial causation and 30% preexisting conditions was accepted, resulting in a 27% permanent disability award.
Official decision · page 8 →
ADJ14048813 · 2023-07-10 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 19, 2023 Findings of Fact, Orders and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a California Highway Patrol Officer on October 19, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19-related illness. The WCJ found that the presumption of industrial causation found in Labor Code section 3212.87 was applicable, and that defendant had not overcome the presumption.
The presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.87 applies to CHP officers. The WCJ found applicant's symptom history credible and consistent with industrial exposure. Defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, including no evidence of non-industrial exposure during vacation. The QME opined industrial causation based on applicant's symptoms starting October 10, 2020, before vacation. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and denied reconsideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15099173 · 2023-01-17 · Sacramento District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3Applicant alleges injury to her left upper extremity, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and left thumb during a continuous trauma ending on 8/5/2021; defendant denied the injury. The sole issues presented to the Court was if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and need for further medical treatment. Defendant did not deny the injury based upon statute of limitations. The parties utilized Dr. Sclafani as the PQME to resolve their issues.
The court affirmed the WCJ's finding of a cumulative trauma injury ending on 8/5/2021 based on Dr. Sclafani's medical opinion and rejected defendant's argument that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 should define the cumulative trauma injury date, as that is a separate legal issue related to statute of limitations and compensation rate, not the definition of cumulative trauma.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ7054381 · 2022-08-30 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The factors of permanent disability are based upon the reports of Dr. Isono. The basis for apportionment must be clear; the medical-legal report must "describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion." Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (en banc).
Dr. Isono's detailed impairment ratings and apportionment findings were accepted, supporting a 51% permanent disability award.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ11348346 · 2021-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.5Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2021, on the issue of how to combine the disabilities. Applicant pointed out that Dr. McCormack had opined that due to the synergistic between the cognitive and the psychiatric disabilities, they should be added together. Pursuant to 8 Cal.Code.Regs 1096l(c), the Findings and Award of March 26, 2021, was rescinded and an Amended Findings and Award was issued on April 16, 2021. In the Amended Findings and Award it was determined that the orthopedic disabilities, the cognitive disability, and the psychiatric disability should each be added together, for a total of 100%.
The panel found that the additive approach to combining the three components of disability was appropriate due to the synergistic effect between the cognitive and psychiatric disabilities as explained by Dr. McCormack and supported by Dr. Pattison, consistent with the Kite precedent.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ8969933 · 2021-06-29 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6In her appeal of the IMR decision, applicant argues that the June 10, 2020 UR decision and corresponding IMR decision are "faulty" because they are inconsistent with the April 29, 2020 UR decision. (Applicant Exhibit No. 9, Petition for Order Vacating IMR Determination, August 4, 2020, p. 6.) This is not a basis to appeal an IMR determination under section 4610.6(h). Therefore, we agree with the WCJ that applicant has not established by clear and convincing evidence a valid basis for appeal of the IMR determination in accordance with the Labor Code.
Applicant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence a valid basis for appeal of the IMR determination under section 4610.6(h).
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ10908468 · 2025-06-30 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ's decision here includes findings of injury and employment, threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Thus, we treat defendant's Petition as one for reconsideration. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)
The WCJ's decision included findings on threshold issues, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but defendant only challenged interlocutory orders, so the removal standard applied. Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.
The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.
Official decision · page 5 →
ADJ13508500 · 2021-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration.
The WCAB panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration because the defendant failed to comply with its duty to conduct a reasonable and good faith investigation and improperly rejected the medical evidence without clarification attempts.
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.

MARCUS, REGALADO, MARCUS & PULLEY
Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley
Marcus Regalado Marcus & Pulley
MARCUS & PULLEY
LAW OFFICES OF MARCUS, REGALADO, MARCUS & PULLEY, LLP
THE LAW OFFICES OF MARCUS & PULLEY, LLP
The Law Offices of Marcus & Pulley, LLP
Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley, LLP

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 →

Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

9 for the applicant

2 for the defense

2 returned for more record

Decisions

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

ADJ21172307 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Liability for workers' compensation accrues for an injury "arising out of and in the course of the employment." (Lab. Code, § 3600, subd. (a).) Injuries sustained while an employee is "going and coming" to and from the place of employment do not normally arise out of and in the course of employment because the employee is neither providing benefit to the employer nor under the control of the employer during that commute. (Santa Rosa Junior College v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 345, 351§ 352 [1985 Cal. LEXIS 410]; Hinojosa v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1972) 8 Cal.3d 150, 157 [37 Cal.Comp.Cases 734].) "[T]he going and coming rule applies when the employee is commuting between his home and work or, as Hinojosa characterizes it, it applies to a `local commute enroute to a fixed place of business at fixed hours.' (Hinojosa, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 157.)" (Zhu v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1031, 1038 [82 Cal.Comp.Cases 692].)

The WCJ and the Board found that the injury occurred during the applicant's regular commute and did not fall within any exceptions to the going and coming rule, including the zone of employment or special risk exceptions, and thus the claim was barred.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ7483164 · 2026-03-16 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Applicant was evaluated by Nicole Chitnis, M.D. as a "regular physician" per Labor Code § 5701 in the specialty of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Dr. Chitnis examined Applicant on July 8, 2019 (report dated August 7, 2019), August 8, 2022 (report dated August 31, 2022), April 11, 2023 (report dated April 15, 2023), November 7, 2023 (report dated November 11, 2023), and February 12, 2025 (report dated February 16, 2025) (Joint Exhibits 11, 8, 7, 5, and 4). Dr. Chitnis issued three supplemental reports dated April 2, 2020, February 20, 2021, July 4, 2023 (Joint Exhibit 10, 9 and 6). Dr. Chitnis was deposed on three separate occasions: October 19, 2019, May 22, 2024, and August 20, 2025 (Joint Exhibit 14, 13 and 12).

The WCJ and panel found Dr. Chitnis' opinion substantial evidence supporting 100% permanent total disability, with addition of impairments per Kite and Vigil rather than combined values chart (CVC).

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ12916393 · 2024-12-03 · Sacramento District OfficeCumulative traumaremanded

Determinative passage · p.6As noted above, the record is incomplete. There are no stipulations or issues set forth regarding the claimed cumulative trauma claim through May 20, 2013 (ADJ12916393). Likewise, Judge Aldrich did not make any findings regarding ADJ12916393. Though, Dr. Isono did not find a cumulative trauma injury on an orthopedic basis (Joint Exhibit GG, at page 1), it does not appear that Dr. Curry specifically addressed whether there was a psychiatric cumulative trauma injury. The undersigned believes that the WCAB should grant reconsideration and return the cases so that a proper record can be established.

No findings were made on the cumulative trauma claim; reconsideration granted to establish a proper record on this issue.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ16468538 · 2023-10-09 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.8As the QME, Dr. Jacks performed a psychiatric evaluation and consultation with psychological testing and interview. Dr. Jacks found impairment and a GAF score of 58, which is 18% WPI. Regarding apportionment, Dr. Jacks describes Applicant's history which includes marital problems and a divorce in 2015. Applicant was put on Lexapro and Ambien. Dr. Jacks opines this earlier breakdown with anxiety and depression made Applicant more vulnerable for a later breakdown and probably explains the extent of his reactions and current problems at work. Dr. Jacks indicates Applicant was divorced again in 2019 around the time of the claimed work difficulties. Dr. Jacks finds the divorce probably caused factors of permanent disability. Dr. Jacks indicates Applicant's sister died in 2018 and his father died in 2020. Dr. Jacks highlights prior panic attacks in 2013 and 2015 and explains that panic attacks can relapse. Dr. Jacks finds but for the preexisting and personal nonindustrial stress, the disability would not be as great. Dr. Jacks apportions 30% to preexisting and personal nonindustrial stressors and 70% to work stress. (Joint Exhibit AA)

Dr. Jacks' evaluation and apportionment of 70% industrial causation and 30% preexisting conditions was accepted, resulting in a 27% permanent disability award.

Official decision · page 8 →

ADJ14048813 · 2023-07-10 · Stockton District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the April 19, 2023 Findings of Fact, Orders and Award (F&A), wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as a California Highway Patrol Officer on October 19, 2020, sustained industrial injury in the form of COVID-19-related illness. The WCJ found that the presumption of industrial causation found in Labor Code section 3212.87 was applicable, and that defendant had not overcome the presumption.

The presumption of industrial causation under Labor Code section 3212.87 applies to CHP officers. The WCJ found applicant's symptom history credible and consistent with industrial exposure. Defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to rebut the presumption, including no evidence of non-industrial exposure during vacation. The QME opined industrial causation based on applicant's symptoms starting October 10, 2020, before vacation. The WCAB gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and denied reconsideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15099173 · 2023-01-17 · Sacramento District OfficeCumulative traumaapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3Applicant alleges injury to her left upper extremity, left shoulder, left elbow, left wrist, and left thumb during a continuous trauma ending on 8/5/2021; defendant denied the injury. The sole issues presented to the Court was if the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and need for further medical treatment. Defendant did not deny the injury based upon statute of limitations. The parties utilized Dr. Sclafani as the PQME to resolve their issues.

The court affirmed the WCJ's finding of a cumulative trauma injury ending on 8/5/2021 based on Dr. Sclafani's medical opinion and rejected defendant's argument that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 should define the cumulative trauma injury date, as that is a separate legal issue related to statute of limitations and compensation rate, not the definition of cumulative trauma.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ7054381 · 2022-08-30 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The factors of permanent disability are based upon the reports of Dr. Isono. The basis for apportionment must be clear; the medical-legal report must "describe in detail the exact nature of the apportionable disability, and set forth the basis for the opinion." Escobedo v. Marshalls (2007) 70 Cal. Comp. Cases 604, 621 (en banc).

Dr. Isono's detailed impairment ratings and apportionment findings were accepted, supporting a 51% permanent disability award.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ11348346 · 2021-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.5Applicant filed a Petition for Reconsideration on April 1, 2021, on the issue of how to combine the disabilities. Applicant pointed out that Dr. McCormack had opined that due to the synergistic between the cognitive and the psychiatric disabilities, they should be added together. Pursuant to 8 Cal.Code.Regs 1096l(c), the Findings and Award of March 26, 2021, was rescinded and an Amended Findings and Award was issued on April 16, 2021. In the Amended Findings and Award it was determined that the orthopedic disabilities, the cognitive disability, and the psychiatric disability should each be added together, for a total of 100%.

The panel found that the additive approach to combining the three components of disability was appropriate due to the synergistic effect between the cognitive and psychiatric disabilities as explained by Dr. McCormack and supported by Dr. Pattison, consistent with the Kite precedent.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ8969933 · 2021-06-29 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6In her appeal of the IMR decision, applicant argues that the June 10, 2020 UR decision and corresponding IMR decision are "faulty" because they are inconsistent with the April 29, 2020 UR decision. (Applicant Exhibit No. 9, Petition for Order Vacating IMR Determination, August 4, 2020, p. 6.) This is not a basis to appeal an IMR determination under section 4610.6(h). Therefore, we agree with the WCJ that applicant has not established by clear and convincing evidence a valid basis for appeal of the IMR determination in accordance with the Labor Code.

Applicant did not establish by clear and convincing evidence a valid basis for appeal of the IMR determination under section 4610.6(h).

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ10908468 · 2025-06-30 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4The WCJ's decision here includes findings of injury and employment, threshold issues. Accordingly, the WCJ's decision is a final order subject to reconsideration rather than removal. Thus, we treat defendant's Petition as one for reconsideration. Although the decision contains a finding that is final, the petitioner is only challenging an interlocutory order in the decision. Therefore, we will apply the removal standard to our review. (See Gaona, supra.)

The WCJ's decision included findings on threshold issues, making it a final order subject to reconsideration, but defendant only challenged interlocutory orders, so the removal standard applied. Defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ9800810 · 2025-06-13 · Sacramento District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.5On the existing record it is not possible to establish which injury, or injuries, caused the current need for treatment to the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder. Although medical care was awarded for body parts in both ADJ3318010 and ADJ9800810, it is necessary to determine the current cause of treatment for each body part.

The Board found that the existing record did not contain substantial medical opinions to establish which injury caused the current need for treatment for the lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and right shoulder, and that further medical development was necessary before determining joint and several liability and administration of claims.

Official decision · page 5 →

ADJ13508500 · 2021-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration 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 for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, which we adopt and incorporate, and for the reasons stated below, we will deny reconsideration.

The WCAB panel adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration because the defendant failed to comply with its duty to conduct a reasonable and good faith investigation and improperly rejected the medical evidence without clarification attempts.

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.

MARCUS, REGALADO, MARCUS & PULLEY

Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley

Marcus Regalado Marcus & Pulley

MARCUS & PULLEY

LAW OFFICES OF MARCUS, REGALADO, MARCUS & PULLEY, LLP

THE LAW OFFICES OF MARCUS & PULLEY, LLP

The Law Offices of Marcus & Pulley, LLP

Marcus, Regalado, Marcus & Pulley, LLP