California WCABLaw firm

Sion & Associates

Sion & Associates is named in 11 released California WCAB decisions from 2021–2026. The disputes run to AOE/COE (4), Jurisdiction / venue (2) and Earnings / average weekly earnings (1). They were heard most often at Van Nuys, then Los Angeles. The firm it meets most often is Abramson Labor Group (1).

Decisions: 11
Years: 2021–2026
Issues disputed: 4
District offices: 7

Defense sideRead off how the firm is printed in the service list of its own decisions — 10 of 10 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

7 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

Van Nuys 4
Los Angeles 2
Long Beach 1
Oxnard 1
Pomona 1
Riverside 1
Santa Ana 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.

4 for the applicant
4 for the defense
4 returned for more record

Counted over 11 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.

ADJ14466153 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded
Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2022, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on June 17, 2020 as a machinist, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, and bilateral feet.
The WCJ found no injury AOE/COE due to lack of medical expert opinion and less than credible testimony, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and remanded for further medical discovery and expert opinion.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ9435746 · 2024-08-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Exhibits 7-9, reports of prior PTP, Dr. Quesada, should similarly be admitted into the record. The WCJ argues that under AD Rule 9785(b)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(1)), applicant is not to have more than one PTP at any given time. There is no evidence in the record, however, to suggest that applicant was being seen by another PTP while Dr. Quesada served as applicant's PTP. Further, MPN issues aside, applicant is not prohibited from seeking a new PTP at any point in time and may replace a PTP for any number of reasons. Replacement, however, does not mean the reports of the prior PTP suddenly become invalid. Ultimately, the fact that the WCJ is unsure of Dr. Quesada's status is irrelevant insofar as the issue of admissibility is concerned. As with consulting physician reports, due process requires the admission of all relevant reports, including the prior PTP reports of Dr. Quesada.
The WCJ excluded secondary and consulting physician reports and prior PTP reports, but the WCAB found no legal basis for exclusion and held due process requires admission of all relevant reports.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ17812320 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant 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, except as noted below, and the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision in order to properly note the jurisdictional findings in Finding of Fact number 1, including injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine and left shoulder. We otherwise affirm the January 19, 2024 Findings and Award. Pursuant to our authority, we accept defendant's supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.)
The Board found the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense because defendant failed to prove applicant had disability and knowledge of industrial cause prior to layoff, and amended Findings of Fact to include injury to cervical spine and left shoulder.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ11942492 · 2022-10-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.10Dr. La's conclusion on causation appears reasonable, given that the applicant frequently lifted heavy aerospace materials and was nearly always working at his desk monitor. There is substantial medical evidence to establish injury based on the applicant's job duties, which included lifting heavy parts, working at a desk, and looking at a computer monitor for a prolonged time. Based on the testimony, as well as the medical reports and deposition testimony of Dr. La, the Court finds that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his neck and low back arising out of and in the course of employment.
Substantial medical evidence, including the panel QME's final opinion and applicant's job duties, established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back.
Official decision · page 10 →
ADJ3543062 · 2021-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded
Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The arbitrator has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return this matter to the arbitrator so that he may independently consider the evidence in this matter, render a decision, and document the proceedings as mandated by Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc).
The Board found the record inadequate for a decision on coverage and remanded the matter to the arbitrator to create an adequate record and reconsider the coverage issue.
Official decision · page 2 →
ADJ12278544 · 2021-06-07 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.7Applicant was involved in a serious automobile accident in his company- provided vehicle on 01/24/2018, Defendant accepted the claim and provided benefits. Later, applicant was deposed and testified that he was in field in his company-provided vehicle performing work for Ormco in servicing orthodontist accounts on 01/24/2018. At some point in the day applicant engaged in a personal errand by stopping at a car dealership. From there he headed to his child's school for pick up. While driving between these two locations applicant was involved the serious vehicle accident and was injured. Based upon this deposition testimony, the defendant then denied the claim and ceased provision of benefits to applicant asserting applicant was engaged in strictly personal errands when the vehicle accident occurred, alleging the various theories set forth at trial and their petition as to why defendant has no liability to provide benefits herein.
Applicant was engaged in employment-related work in a company-provided mobile office vehicle, simultaneously performing personal errands but remaining available for work communications, thus not materially deviating from employment duties and within the course of employment under the Dual Purpose Rule.
Official decision · page 7 →
ADJ12149152 · 2021-06-04 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.
The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.
Official decision · page 4 →
ADJ16489247 · 2026-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 20, 2025.
The Appeals Board concluded the Petition for Reconsideration was premature because the WCJ had not created a complete record with evidence and testimony for review, thus the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17849976 · 2025-10-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded
Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.
The matter was pending on reconsideration, but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement consideration.
Official decision · page 1 →
ADJ17849976 · 2025-04-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed
Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision without additional development of the record.
The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete medical evidence and the need for further development.
Official decision · page 6 →
ADJ14068880 · 2023-06-27 · Van Nuys 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 and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.
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.

SION & ASSOCIATES
Sion & Associates
SION ASSOCIATES

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 →

Sion & Associates

Decisions

Years

2021–2026

Issues disputed

District offices

How the appealed decisions came out

4 for the applicant

4 for the defense

4 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.

ADJ14466153 · 2025-10-21 · Los Angeles District OfficeAOE/COEremanded

Determinative passage · p.1Applicant seeks reconsideration of the Findings and Order (F&O) issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on June 3, 2022, wherein the WCJ found that while employed by defendant on June 17, 2020 as a machinist, applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to his back, bilateral hips, bilateral legs, and bilateral feet.

The WCJ found no injury AOE/COE due to lack of medical expert opinion and less than credible testimony, but the Appeals Board found the record insufficiently developed and remanded for further medical discovery and expert opinion.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ9435746 · 2024-08-20 · Los Angeles District OfficeEarnings / average weekly earningsapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Applicant's Exhibits 7-9, reports of prior PTP, Dr. Quesada, should similarly be admitted into the record. The WCJ argues that under AD Rule 9785(b)(1) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 9785(b)(1)), applicant is not to have more than one PTP at any given time. There is no evidence in the record, however, to suggest that applicant was being seen by another PTP while Dr. Quesada served as applicant's PTP. Further, MPN issues aside, applicant is not prohibited from seeking a new PTP at any point in time and may replace a PTP for any number of reasons. Replacement, however, does not mean the reports of the prior PTP suddenly become invalid. Ultimately, the fact that the WCJ is unsure of Dr. Quesada's status is irrelevant insofar as the issue of admissibility is concerned. As with consulting physician reports, due process requires the admission of all relevant reports, including the prior PTP reports of Dr. Quesada.

The WCJ excluded secondary and consulting physician reports and prior PTP reports, but the WCAB found no legal basis for exclusion and held due process requires admission of all relevant reports.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ17812320 · 2024-04-08 · Riverside District OfficeJurisdiction / venueapplicant 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, except as noted below, and the reasons stated below, we will grant reconsideration, amend the WCJ's decision in order to properly note the jurisdictional findings in Finding of Fact number 1, including injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE) to the cervical spine and left shoulder. We otherwise affirm the January 19, 2024 Findings and Award. Pursuant to our authority, we accept defendant's supplemental pleading. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10964.)

The Board found the claim was not barred by the post-termination defense because defendant failed to prove applicant had disability and knowledge of industrial cause prior to layoff, and amended Findings of Fact to include injury to cervical spine and left shoulder.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ11942492 · 2022-10-06 · Santa Ana District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.10Dr. La's conclusion on causation appears reasonable, given that the applicant frequently lifted heavy aerospace materials and was nearly always working at his desk monitor. There is substantial medical evidence to establish injury based on the applicant's job duties, which included lifting heavy parts, working at a desk, and looking at a computer monitor for a prolonged time. Based on the testimony, as well as the medical reports and deposition testimony of Dr. La, the Court finds that the applicant sustained a cumulative trauma injury to his neck and low back arising out of and in the course of employment.

Substantial medical evidence, including the panel QME's final opinion and applicant's job duties, established cumulative trauma injury AOE/COE to neck and back.

Official decision · page 10 →

ADJ3543062 · 2021-12-01 · Oxnard District OfficeJurisdiction / venueremanded

Determinative passage · p.2We have considered the Petition for Reconsideration, and we have reviewed the record in this matter. The arbitrator has filed a Report and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration, recommending that the petition be denied. For the reasons discussed below, we will rescind the arbitrator's decision and return this matter to the arbitrator so that he may independently consider the evidence in this matter, render a decision, and document the proceedings as mandated by Hamilton v. Lockheed Corp. (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 473 (Appeals Bd. en banc).

The Board found the record inadequate for a decision on coverage and remanded the matter to the arbitrator to create an adequate record and reconsider the coverage issue.

Official decision · page 2 →

ADJ12278544 · 2021-06-07 · Long Beach District OfficeAOE/COEapplicant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.7Applicant was involved in a serious automobile accident in his company- provided vehicle on 01/24/2018, Defendant accepted the claim and provided benefits. Later, applicant was deposed and testified that he was in field in his company-provided vehicle performing work for Ormco in servicing orthodontist accounts on 01/24/2018. At some point in the day applicant engaged in a personal errand by stopping at a car dealership. From there he headed to his child's school for pick up. While driving between these two locations applicant was involved the serious vehicle accident and was injured. Based upon this deposition testimony, the defendant then denied the claim and ceased provision of benefits to applicant asserting applicant was engaged in strictly personal errands when the vehicle accident occurred, alleging the various theories set forth at trial and their petition as to why defendant has no liability to provide benefits herein.

Applicant was engaged in employment-related work in a company-provided mobile office vehicle, simultaneously performing personal errands but remaining available for work communications, thus not materially deviating from employment duties and within the course of employment under the Dual Purpose Rule.

Official decision · page 7 →

ADJ12149152 · 2021-06-04 · Pomona District OfficeAOE/COEdefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.4Applicant was exposed to lasers in a hallway at his workplace. This was reported to the employer and medical attention was provided. Applicant has been treated and evaluated by specialists in the fields of neurology, ophthalmology, neuro-ophthalmology and optometry. He was a seen by a QME in the field of ophthalmology as well. The matter proceeded to trial only on the issue of whether applicant sustained injury to his eyes. The question of injury to the psyche was deferred. All other issues were deferred. Applicant did not testify at trial. The record was contained within the documents submitted. These included medical notes or reports from several physicians and a deposition of the QME. After review of the entire record, it was found that the record did not contain substantial medical evidence to support applicant's claim of injury to the eyes as pled. It is that decision that is the basis for the present Petition.

The record lacked substantial medical evidence to support injury to the eyes; the QME Dr. Macy's report was found thorough and persuasive, concluding no evidence of injury to the eyes.

Official decision · page 4 →

ADJ16489247 · 2026-01-14 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.1Defendant seeks reconsideration of the First Amended Order Approving Compromise and Release (OACR) issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on October 20, 2025.

The Appeals Board concluded the Petition for Reconsideration was premature because the WCJ had not created a complete record with evidence and testimony for review, thus the matter was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17849976 · 2025-10-07 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

Determinative passage · p.1It has come to the attention of the Appeals Board that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, the parties have reached a proposed settlement.

The matter was pending on reconsideration, but the parties reached a proposed settlement, so the WCAB rescinded the prior decision and returned the matter to the WCJ for settlement consideration.

Official decision · page 1 →

ADJ17849976 · 2025-04-18 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

Determinative passage · p.6Here, it is unclear from our preliminary review that there is substantial medical evidence to support the WCJ's decision without additional development of the record.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further review of the merits and the entire record due to incomplete medical evidence and the need for further development.

Official decision · page 6 →

ADJ14068880 · 2023-06-27 · Van Nuys 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 and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if the matter proceeds to a final decision adverse to petitioner.

Official decision · page 1 →