The Fletcher B. Brown Law Firm

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Oakland 13
• Sacramento 2
• San Jose 2
• Lodi 1
• Redding 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.

• 14 for the defense
• 4 for the applicant
• 3 returned for more record

Counted over 20 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.

• ADJ18364465 · 2026-01-16 · Lodi District OfficeTemporary disabilityapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was on modified duty, but he was told he was unable to work at all. His retirement was a function of his industrial injury, and not a result of any intention not to work. Further, in contrast to the evidentiary record in Sera, the present case establishes that applicant was medically unable to work, or look for work, immediately after his retirement. Dr. Walter, the Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (PQME), indicated in his April 11, 2024 report that applicant was temporarily totally disabled (TTD) from July 14, 2023 forward, so medical expert opinion supports applicant's TTD status. Accordingly, we deny the Petition for Reconsideration of the findings and award of temporary disability.

  Applicant's retirement was due to his industrial injury and not a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market; medical evidence and applicant's credible testimony support entitlement to temporary disability benefits after retirement.

  Official decision · page 4 →
• ADJ16790828 · 2025-11-10 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

  Determinative passage · p.11Finally, Ajaib Kahlon the applicant was joined as an additional party after the trial had already been submitted.4 Over applicant's objection, the WCJ continued with proceedings. In this case, the applicant is an indispensable party as a potential employer. The matter should not have been heard or decided until he was properly joined. All parties to a workers' compensation proceeding retain the fundamental right to due process and a fair hearing under both the California and United States Constitutions. (Rucker v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 151, 157-158 [65 Cal.Comp.Cases 805].) A fair hearing is "... one of `the rudiments of fair play' assured to every litigant..." (Id. at p. 158.) As stated by the California Supreme Court in Carstens v. Pillsbury (1916) 172 Cal. 572, [The] commission,... must find facts and declare and enforce rights and liabilities, -- in short, it acts as a court, and it must observe the mandate of the constitution of the United States that this cannot be done except after due process of law. (Id. at p. 577.) Because the parties are so intertwined, the issue of multiple employments cannot be bifurcated, and due process requires that all potential employers be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Even if the record were not in shambles as it is here, due process would still require that the decision be rescinded and remanded.

  The record was found inadequate and inconsistent to determine employment status; due process required joinder of all potential employers and further development of the record.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ16773219 · 2025-06-03 · Oakland District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.11Here, applicant argues that Dr. Granado's reports are admissible pursuant to section 4605 because she obtained Dr. Granado's reports to discuss proper medical treatment. Applicant disputes that the recommendations were generic, and applicant further argues that the determination that Dr. Granado's reports were obtained for the sole purpose of rebutting Dr. Welborn's reports must be set aside because Dr. Granado did not review those reports. However, applicant's arguments are undercut by Dr. Granado's failure to provide any recommendations for medical treatment in her second report. (See proposed Exhibit 2.) Furthermore, applicant does not explain why the reports are needed to rebut the recommendations for future medical treatment that Dr. Welborn made since both physicians recommended the same course of treatment. Similarly, applicant does not address why generic recommendations for treatment would render a report admissible. Therefore, Dr. Granado's reporting is not admissible pursuant to section 4605.

  Dr. Granado's reports were obtained for the sole purpose of rebutting the QME and did not provide recommendations for medical treatment; thus, they are inadmissible under section 4605.

  Official decision · page 11 →
• ADJ18188574 · 2025-01-14 · Redding District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Accordingly, we grant reconsideration and return this matter to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

  The WCAB found that the statute of limitations issue required further development of the record, including medical legal evaluation to determine the date of injury and knowledge of disability, and that the prior WCJ decision barring the claim was premature without such findings.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ11199891 · 2024-03-18 · Oakland District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.2DISCUSSION WCAB Rules 10816 and 10510 govern electronic appearances. WCAB Rule 10816 states: "If a party intends to appear electronically at any hearing, they shall file a petition showing good cause pursuant to rule 10510." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10816.) WCAB Rule 10510 requires, among other things, that "a request for action by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board...shall be made by petition." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10510.) Here, applicant's request for an electronic appearance lacked the formality typically associated with such a request under the rules, but the Board's rules "serve the convenience of the tribunal and the [litigants] and facilitate the proceedings. They do not deprive the tribunal of the

  The WCJ denied the request for electronic appearance due to untimeliness and lack of good cause, but the Board found insufficient evidence to support the denial and determined that due process was not provided, thus rescinding the denial and remanding for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 2 →
• ADJ10586171 · 2023-12-15 · San Jose District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, as set forth by the WCJ in his Report, the record regarding applicant's claimed injury to his left eye is not sufficient. Thus, as a matter of due process, further development of the record is appropriate. Applicant is admonished that he should obtain the additional evidence forthwith.

  The record was found insufficient to establish injury to the left eye; further development was ordered but applicant did not timely object to the specialist's report or timely file the petition for reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16790828 · 2026-02-02 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3On the contrary, the Appeals Board's Opinion and Order rescinded the Findings and Order issued by the WCJ. Accordingly, it is not a "final" decision and defendant's Petition for Reconsideration will be dismissed. We will also deny the petition to the extent it seeks removal. Removal 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, for the reasons stated in the WCJ's report, 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 petition for removal was denied because the petitioner failed to show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and reconsideration was an adequate remedy.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ17262639 · 2025-09-29 · San Jose District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant has filed a Petition for Removal from the order of continuance issued on February 20, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The Appeals Board found that the defendant did not show substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the continuance order and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to the defendant.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19059640 · 2025-09-24 · Oakland District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant has filed a petition for removal from the order setting the matter for trial issued on March 13, 2025, by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ).

  The Appeals Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to applicant if removal was denied and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final adverse decision.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19985153 · 2025-09-16 · Oakland 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 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 →
• ADJ13330862 · 2025-04-01 · Oakland 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 demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was denied, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ15945803 · 2024-07-08 · Sacramento District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of a March 26, 2024 Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The Compromise and Release (C&R) resolved applicant's claimed December 22, 2021 injury to her arm, wrist, fingers, and shoulders and was based upon the opinion of panel Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Stephanie Janiak. Applicant now seeks to set aside the OACR so that a new QME report that finds further impairment may be considered.

  Petition dismissed as premature due to lack of evidence of good cause to set aside the OACR; matter returned to trial level for further proceedings to allow evidence and hearing

  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. These are the twelve commonest of 13.

• FLETCHER B. BROWN LAW FIRM
• THE FLETCHER B. BROWN LAW FIRM
• FLETCHER BROWN
• LAW OFFICES OF FLETCHER B. BROWN
• The Fletcher B. Brown Law Firm
• The Fletcher B Brown Law Firm
• FLETCHER BERNARD BROWN, ESQ.
• THE FLETCHER BROWN LAW FIRM
• The Fletcher Brown Law Firm
• FLETCHER BROWN LAW FIRM
• Fletcher Brown Law Firm
• FLETCHER BROWN 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.