California WCABLaw firm

Law Office of Dixon, Cooper & Brown

Law Office of Dixon, Cooper & Brown is named in 12 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (2), Apportionment (1) and Jurisdiction / venue (1). They were heard most often at Santa Ana, then Van Nuys. The firm it meets most often is Barkhordarian Law Firm (1).

Decisions: 12
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 6
District offices: 8

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 6 of 6 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

8 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

Santa Ana 3
Van Nuys 3
Los Angeles 1
Marina del Rey 1
Oakland 1
Pomona 1
San Bernardino 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.

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

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ8887862 · 2026-04-28 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Here, BBSI argues that applicant was not properly added to the ledger of employees and was never paid by BBSI and is therefore not an employee of BBSI. Yet, BBSI provides no evidence of an exclusion to rebut the presumption of employment. The test outlined in Riley, supra supports the finding that there is general employment on the part of BBSI. First, there is clearly a mutual agreement that BBSI was to be a co-employer with Long Beach for their employees and that BBSI retained the right to control, to some degree, the employees of Long Beach. Second, several of the documents authenticated and signed by the applicant were on BBSI letterhead, including the payroll election form, and "Employee Acknowledgement of Medical Provider Network." Thus, applicant had an understanding that BBSI was also his employer. These documents were dated December 17, 2012, prior to the date of injury.
The Appeals Board found that applicant was employed by both Long Beach and BBSI based on evidence of mutual agreement, control, and documents on BBSI letterhead signed by applicant.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ16838747 · 2023-05-12 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3applicant, born [ ], while employed on August 11, 2022, in Richmond, California, as a security guard by Greater Bay Protection Services, Inc., insured for workers' compensation by Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, inc., sustained injury to his right shoulder. His primary treating physician, Dr. George Rakkar, issued a December 12, 2022, report which forms the basis for the claim of temporary disability. The matter came to Expedited Hearing on January 25, 2023, on the issues of temporary disability based on the reporting of Dr. Rakkar. Brought up for the first time at Trial was issue that the Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim, as it falls under the LHWCA (Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act). Defendants assert that the board does not have jurisdiction and that this issue is a threshold issue.
The WCJ found Dr. Rakkar's report to be substantial medical evidence supporting total temporary disability from December 12, 2022, continuing, and the WCAB panel upheld this finding, denying the petition for reconsideration.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ9384866 · 2022-07-22 · San Bernardino District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.3"In regard to the applicant's injury to the psyche, I find that I must concur with the defense position that the final reporting of Dr. Blount does not carry the persuasive weight as do the final opinions of the Panel QME, Dr. Egan, as to the applicant's GAF score and whole person impairment, but I agree with applicant that Dr. Egan's opinion on the issue of apportionment to pre-existing factors is not substantial. To be valid apportionment, the doctor must explain the nature of the disease process or condition to which apportionment is applied, must explain how and why it is causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and must explain how and why it is responsible for the percentage of disability to which apportionment is applied. Dr. Egan does not do this. In fact, upon cross-examination at deposition, Dr. Egan invalidated the prior opinion on apportionment by stating, "...in my medical opinion, this Applicant likely would not have had a psychiatric condition that would have happened if that accident had not occurred." {Reference, Exhibit B, Page 58, Lines 6 § 9. On that basis, I find applicant has sustained a psychiatric injury leaving applicant
The psychiatric QME Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion was found not substantial because it failed to explain the nature of the nonindustrial conditions, how and why they caused disability, and was not framed in reasonable medical probability. The deposition further undermined the opinion, confirming the applicant likely would not have had a psychiatric condition but for the industrial injury.
Official decision · page 3 →
ADJ15627821 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1UEBTF contends that trial is not appropriate at this time because all necessary parties to the proceeding have not been joined and that not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). UEBTF further contends that applicant amended the application for adjudication at the MSC to allege a specific injury, rather than a cumulative injury, and thus UEBTF is entitled to seek additional discovery on that issue prior to trial.
Removal granted because not all necessary parties were joined and not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference, constituting irreparable harm and violation of due process rights.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14429786 · 2025-06-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ14904382 · 2025-04-11 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ15734313 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 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.
The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and that the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. The WCJ's findings and report were relied upon to deny the petition.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ7707054 · 2023-06-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.
The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ12056335 · 2022-11-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ10309928 · 2022-01-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded
Determinative passage · p.4After having determined that the vocational rehabilitation report was improperly provided to AME Angerman according to Labor Code section 4062.3(c), the undersigned struck the reporting of Dr. Angerman under Labor Code section 4062.3(g) and ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the selection of a new AME or that a Regular Physician may be appointed by the Court. In lieu of this, applicant's counsel filed their Petition for Reconsideration.
The WCJ initially struck Dr. Angerman's report due to improper communication but reconsidered after reviewing the deposition transcript showing Dr. Angerman requested the vocational rehabilitation report, which was improperly provided but important for his review.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ13417027 · 2021-05-13 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal 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 defendant's arguments in the WCJ's report and Opinion on Decision, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.
The Appeals Board found the WCJ's decision included a final threshold issue and that the defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, so the petition was denied as a reconsideration petition.
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.

COOPER BROWN, APC
DIXON COOPER BROWN
Law Office of Dixon, Cooper & Brown
COOPER BROWN LAW FIRM
Dixon Cooper Brown
Cooper Brown, APC
COOPER BROWN LAW
Cooper Brown APC
COOPER BROWN

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 →

Law Office of Dixon, Cooper & Brown

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

6 for the defense

5 for the applicant

1 returned for more record

Counted over 12 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.

ADJ8887862 · 2026-04-28 · Marina Del Rey District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10Here, BBSI argues that applicant was not properly added to the ledger of employees and was never paid by BBSI and is therefore not an employee of BBSI. Yet, BBSI provides no evidence of an exclusion to rebut the presumption of employment. The test outlined in Riley, supra supports the finding that there is general employment on the part of BBSI. First, there is clearly a mutual agreement that BBSI was to be a co-employer with Long Beach for their employees and that BBSI retained the right to control, to some degree, the employees of Long Beach. Second, several of the documents authenticated and signed by the applicant were on BBSI letterhead, including the payroll election form, and "Employee Acknowledgement of Medical Provider Network." Thus, applicant had an understanding that BBSI was also his employer. These documents were dated December 17, 2012, prior to the date of injury.

The Appeals Board found that applicant was employed by both Long Beach and BBSI based on evidence of mutual agreement, control, and documents on BBSI letterhead signed by applicant.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ16838747 · 2023-05-12 · Oakland District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3applicant, born [ ], while employed on August 11, 2022, in Richmond, California, as a security guard by Greater Bay Protection Services, Inc., insured for workers' compensation by Accredited Surety and Casualty Company, inc., sustained injury to his right shoulder. His primary treating physician, Dr. George Rakkar, issued a December 12, 2022, report which forms the basis for the claim of temporary disability. The matter came to Expedited Hearing on January 25, 2023, on the issues of temporary disability based on the reporting of Dr. Rakkar. Brought up for the first time at Trial was issue that the Board does not have jurisdiction over this claim, as it falls under the LHWCA (Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act). Defendants assert that the board does not have jurisdiction and that this issue is a threshold issue.

The WCJ found Dr. Rakkar's report to be substantial medical evidence supporting total temporary disability from December 12, 2022, continuing, and the WCAB panel upheld this finding, denying the petition for reconsideration.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ9384866 · 2022-07-22 · San Bernardino District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.3"In regard to the applicant's injury to the psyche, I find that I must concur with the defense position that the final reporting of Dr. Blount does not carry the persuasive weight as do the final opinions of the Panel QME, Dr. Egan, as to the applicant's GAF score and whole person impairment, but I agree with applicant that Dr. Egan's opinion on the issue of apportionment to pre-existing factors is not substantial. To be valid apportionment, the doctor must explain the nature of the disease process or condition to which apportionment is applied, must explain how and why it is causing permanent disability at the time of the evaluation, and must explain how and why it is responsible for the percentage of disability to which apportionment is applied. Dr. Egan does not do this. In fact, upon cross-examination at deposition, Dr. Egan invalidated the prior opinion on apportionment by stating, "...in my medical opinion, this Applicant likely would not have had a psychiatric condition that would have happened if that accident had not occurred." {Reference, Exhibit B, Page 58, Lines 6 § 9. On that basis, I find applicant has sustained a psychiatric injury leaving applicant

The psychiatric QME Dr. Egan's apportionment opinion was found not substantial because it failed to explain the nature of the nonindustrial conditions, how and why they caused disability, and was not framed in reasonable medical probability. The deposition further undermined the opinion, confirming the applicant likely would not have had a psychiatric condition but for the industrial injury.

Official decision · page 3 →

ADJ15627821 · 2025-10-10 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1UEBTF contends that trial is not appropriate at this time because all necessary parties to the proceeding have not been joined and that not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference (MSC). UEBTF further contends that applicant amended the application for adjudication at the MSC to allege a specific injury, rather than a cumulative injury, and thus UEBTF is entitled to seek additional discovery on that issue prior to trial.

Removal granted because not all necessary parties were joined and not all parties received notice of the mandatory settlement conference, constituting irreparable harm and violation of due process rights.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14429786 · 2025-06-02 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied removal because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, and reconsideration was deemed an adequate remedy if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ14904382 · 2025-04-11 · Pomona District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ15734313 · 2024-10-28 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) 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.

The Appeals Board found the petition was timely filed and that the petitioner failed to show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal. The WCJ's findings and report were relied upon to deny the petition.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ7707054 · 2023-06-19 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of the Petition for Removal 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 petitioner's arguments in the WCJ's report, we will deny removal.

The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ12056335 · 2022-11-22 · Santa Ana District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely exercised by the Appeals Board. (Cortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 596, 599, fn. 5 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 155]; Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 274, 280, fn. 2 [70 Cal.Comp.Cases 133].) The Appeals Board will grant removal only if the petitioner shows that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is not granted. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a); see also Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Also, the petitioner must demonstrate that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if a final decision adverse to the petitioner ultimately issues. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10955(a).) Here, based upon the WCJ's analysis of the merits of petitioner's arguments, we are not persuaded that substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result if removal is denied and/or that reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy if the matter ultimately proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

The Appeals Board denied the petition because the petitioner did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate if the matter proceeded to a final adverse decision.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ10309928 · 2022-01-10 · Santa Ana District OfficeOther disputed issueremanded

Determinative passage · p.4After having determined that the vocational rehabilitation report was improperly provided to AME Angerman according to Labor Code section 4062.3(c), the undersigned struck the reporting of Dr. Angerman under Labor Code section 4062.3(g) and ordered the parties to meet and confer as to the selection of a new AME or that a Regular Physician may be appointed by the Court. In lieu of this, applicant's counsel filed their Petition for Reconsideration.

The WCJ initially struck Dr. Angerman's report due to improper communication but reconsidered after reviewing the deposition transcript showing Dr. Angerman requested the vocational rehabilitation report, which was improperly provided but important for his review.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ13417027 · 2021-05-13 · Stockton District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1We have considered the allegations of defendant's Petition for Removal 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 defendant's arguments in the WCJ's report and Opinion on Decision, we will deny the Petition as one seeking reconsideration.

The Appeals Board found the WCJ's decision included a final threshold issue and that the defendant did not show significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify removal, so the petition was denied as a reconsideration petition.

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.

COOPER BROWN, APC

DIXON COOPER BROWN

Law Office of Dixon, Cooper & Brown

COOPER BROWN LAW FIRM

Dixon Cooper Brown

Cooper Brown, APC

COOPER BROWN LAW

Cooper Brown APC

COOPER BROWN