Eason & Tambornini

What they litigate

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

Where they appear

• Sacramento 32
• Redding 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.

• 20 for the applicant
• 8 returned for more record
• 6 for the defense

Counted over 33 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.

• ADJ19328573 · 2026-06-26 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.13(Exhibit CC, Sean Robinson, M.D., March 4, 2025, PDF p. 64, emphasis added.) The statements provided do not explain how the identified factors caused applicant's

  The Appeals Board found that the medical opinion on apportionment by Dr. Sean Robinson was not substantial evidence due to lack of adequate explanation and reliance on speculation, thus rejecting apportionment and awarding permanent disability without apportionment.

  Official decision · page 13 →
• ADJ12672135 · 2026-06-18 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on March 19, 2026, wherein the WCJ found that applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of his employment (AOE/COE), and ordered that applicant take nothing from his claim.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ erred in applying LaTourette to deny compensability because the injury was caused by the fall impact with the elevator rail and floor, not the non-industrial disease causing the fall, and thus the injury is compensable under established case law.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ12792074 · 2026-04-27 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on January 23, 2026, wherein the WCJ found in pertinent part that applicant sustained 57% permanent disability, after apportionment, for injuries to his right arm, right wrist, left wrist, left hip, and psyche. The WCJ also found that the "violent act" exception applied under Labor Code section1 4660.1 and that applicant did not rebut the Permanent Disability Rating Schedule (PDRS) with vocational evidence.

  The WCJ found 57% permanent disability after apportionment but did not find that applicant rebutted the PDRS with vocational evidence. The Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed, particularly regarding vocational and medical evidence, and granted reconsideration for further development.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11422165 · 2026-02-24 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.5Here, the QME's analysis has focused largely on the question of the efficacy of applicant's current treatment regimen, rather than substantively evaluating whether applicant's industrial injuries may require medical treatment in the future. It is not clear from the current record that the QME fully appreciated the scope of the potential entitlement to future medical treatment afforded under section 4600(a). However, to the extent that the QME has endorsed the potential need for both medications and instruction from a qualified physical therapist, we conclude that applicant's right to possible future medical treatment under section 4600(a) should not be foreclosed. Accordingly, we will amend Finding of Fact No. 8 to reflect that applicant may require future medical treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of his industrial condition. We again observe that any dispute regarding the medical necessity of a requested treatment modality will be subject to the prescribed utilization review and the independent medical review processes. (Lab. Code, § 4610; 4610.5; 4610.6.)

  The QME's opinion indicated possible need for future medical treatment, and the Board concluded the applicant's right to future medical treatment should not be foreclosed, amending the Finding of Fact accordingly.

  Official decision · page 5 →
• ADJ9749095 · 2026-02-20 · Redding District OfficePermanent disability ratingremanded

  Determinative passage · p.7Here, upon preliminary review of the record, we are unable to determine what applicant's scheduled rating is. As such, we will grant reconsideration to further study the record and to determine if it is possible to identify applicant's scheduled rating or if further proceedings may be necessary on this point.

  The Appeals Board could not determine from the record what applicant's scheduled rating is, whether the medical evidence is substantial, or whether apportionment was properly addressed. Further review and possible development of the record are required.

  Official decision · page 7 →
• ADJ16197947 · 2026-01-26 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant JD2 Incorporated, insured by Federal Insurance Company c/o Gallagher Bassett (defendant), petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Award (F&A), issued and served by the workers' compensation arbitrator (WCA) on September 24, 2024. In that decision, the WCA found that applicant, while employed as an ironworker from June [16]1, 2020 to June 16, 2021, sustained industrial injury to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, bilateral shoulders, elbow and wrists, with the issue of injury to his respiratory system deferred. The WCA further found applicant's knowledge and first date of disability of his cumulative trauma pursuant to Labor Code2 section 5412 was June 17, 2021. Finally, the WCA found and awarded applicant temporary total disability (TTD) for the period June 17, 2021 through June 15, 2023, at a rate to be adjusted by the parties.

  The WCAB found the WCA erred in determining the date of injury and the evidence did not support the finding of injury arising out of and in the course of employment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11938023 · 2026-01-05 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) of September 30, 2025, and the Amended Findings and Order (Amended F&O) of October 10, 2025. In the F&O of September 30, 2025, the workers' compensation judge (WCJ) found in relevant part that applicant while employed by defendant sustained injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to her right ankle, right foot, bilateral writs, tailbone/coccyx, claims to have sustained injury AOE/COE to her left ankle, bilateral knees, psyche, heart, and stroke/brain; and that applicant is entitled to panels in the fields of cardiovascular disease and psychiatry. Following an October 7, 2025 letter from applicant's attorney requesting the WCJ's decision be corrected to order panels in psychology and cardiovascular, rather than psychiatry and cardiovascular, the WCJ issued the Amended F&O. Therein, the WCJ corrected the Order to specify a panel in psychology rather than psychiatry, but did not amend Findings of Fact number three (3) to reflect the change in specialty from psychiatry to psychology.

  The Appeals Board granted reconsideration solely to amend the Findings of Fact to specify the correct panels in cardiovascular disease and psychology, affirming the WCJ's decision otherwise.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ18058034 · 2025-09-23 · Sacramento District OfficeApportionmentdefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Defendant has the burden of proof on the issue of apportionment. (Escobedo v. Marshalls (2005) 70 Cal.Comp.Cases 604 (Appeals Board en banc).) Apportionment of permanent disability must be based on causation (Lab. Code, § 4663) and may be attributed to pathology, asymptomatic prior conditions, and retroactive prophylactic work preclusions, provided there is substantial medical evidence establishing that these other factors have caused permanent disability. (Yeager Construction v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Gatten) (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 922, 928 [71 Cal.Comp.Cases 1687] citing Escobedo v. Marshalls, supra, at 612.) Permanent disability must be apportioned in accordance with substantial medical evidence. (Acme Steel v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Borman) (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1137 [78 Cal.Comp.Cases 751])

  The Panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, Dr. Sean Robinson, provided substantial medical evidence supporting a 60% industrial apportionment and 40% non-industrial apportionment based on detailed examination, history, and medical records, which the Appeals Board found legally valid and supported the denial of reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ15040609 · 2025-04-28 · Sacramento District OfficeMedical treatment / UR / IMRapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the January 21, 2025 Findings and Award, wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that applicant, while employed as an AC HVAC Commercial Installer on June 18, 2020 (ADJ17146930) and August 25, 2020 (ADJ15040609) sustained industrial injury to his head, neck, back, shoulders, psyche, psychiatric, brain, lungs, bowel, bladder, upper and lower extremities, and in the form of sexual dysfunction per prior 100 percent stipulations. The WCJ found in relevant part that the court retained jurisdiction to decide the present dispute involving home modifications, and that defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for treatment to cure or relieve from the effects of his industrial injuries. Pursuant to reporting in evidence, the WCJ awarded home modifications in the form of a mobile home to be constructed on applicant's residential property. The WCJ further awarded interim housing in the form of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant apartment or skilled nursing facility.

  The WCJ found defendant failed to timely investigate applicant's need for home modifications as medical treatment to cure or relieve effects of industrial injury, and the WCJ's award for home modifications and interim housing was supported by stipulations and evidence. The WCAB panel agreed and denied reconsideration.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ19059498 · 2025-02-18 · Sacramento District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings of Fact, Order (F&O) issued on November 25, 2024 by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ ordered that applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits be denied and that he take nothing on account of his claim because of his finding that applicant was the initial physical aggressor (Lab. Code, § 3600(a)(7)), in an altercation that caused the July 6, 2023 injury to his head.

  Reconsideration granted due to incomplete record and unavailability of key video evidence needed to assess applicant's conduct and credibility regarding initial physical aggressor status.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11169039 · 2024-11-05 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.14adequate medical history for Dr. Boni's reporting. (Id.) We therefore disagree with the WCJ's conclusion that Dr. Boni's reporting on applicant's preexisting permanent disability of the lumbar spine and left ankle is not substantial medical evidence.

  The Appeals Board found substantial medical evidence supporting previous partial permanent disability of the lumbar spine, left ankle, and right hand based on QME Dr. Boni's report, overruling the WCJ's contrary finding.

  Official decision · page 14 →
• ADJ12953785 · 2024-08-22 · Sacramento District OfficePermanent disability ratingapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The WCJ found, in pertinent part, that applicant sustained a cumulative industrial injury to her bilateral wrists and hands, which resulted in 26% permanent partial disability after apportionment.

  The WCAB found that the applicant failed to rebut the PDRS for permanent total disability based on the AME's credible opinion and vocational evidence; however, the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment because the AME's opinion was based on generalizations and not specific facts of the case. The applicant's permanent disability was found to be 35%.

  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.

• EASON & TAMBORNINI
• Eason & Tambornini
• EASON & TAMBORNINI, ALC
• EASON TAMBORNINI

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.