Glenn L. Silverii & Associates

What they litigate

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

• Discrimination under Labor Code §132a1
• Statute of limitations1

Where they appear

• Anaheim 1
• Los Angeles 1
• Marina del Rey 1
• Oxnard 1
• San Bernardino 1
• Van Nuys 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.

• 3 for the applicant
• 1 for the defense
• 1 returned for more record

Counted over 5 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.

• ADJ9682348 · 2023-01-17 · Anaheim District OfficeStatute of limitationsapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) seeks reconsideration of the April 14, 2020 Findings and Order wherein the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) found that the August 24, 2016 amendment to the application was barred by the statute of limitations. The applicant sought to amend the application to allege that he sustained a cumulative trauma rather than a specific injury.

  The amended application alleging a cumulative trauma injury relates back to the original application because the medical evidence supports a cumulative trauma injury and the claim was accepted and benefits paid accordingly, so the statute of limitations does not bar the amendment.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ16802648 · 2024-08-30 · Oxnard District OfficeReconsideration / removaldefendant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1Accordingly, the petition for removal is now moot, and we will dismiss the petition.

  The petition for removal became moot after the trial WCJ issued a final decision that was not challenged.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ10776417 · 2023-08-15 · Los Angeles District OfficeReconsideration / removalremanded

  Determinative passage · p.1Defendant Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services, Inc. and Security National Insurance Company administered by AmTrust North America, petitioned for reconsideration of the Findings and Order of the workers' compensation arbitrator in this matter on March 9, 2022. In that decision, the arbitrator made findings, including a finding that the WCJ's decision dated March 17, 2020 in which it was found that the general employer of the applicant was Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services, Inc., was a final decision and as such, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to disturb such a finding. The arbitrator further found that Security National Insurance Company was liable for the applicant's injury because they covered the general employer, Vensure HR, Inc. LCF LX Business Services.

  The Board rescinded the Findings and Order and returned the matter to the district office for further proceedings to allow review of the Compromise and Release, without ruling on the merits of the petition.

  Official decision · page 1 →
• ADJ11417486 · 2022-01-26 · Van Nuys District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.3Removal 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); Cortez, supra; Kleemann, supra.) Additionally, 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).) As discussed below, we conclude that the Order will not result in significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration will be an adequate remedy, and that therefore, we will affirm it, except that we will amend it as discussed herein.

  The Appeals Board found that the WCJ's Order converting the hearing to an MSC would not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy, but granted removal to clarify the procedure and urged expeditious handling of the matter.

  Official decision · page 3 →
• ADJ12213333 · 2021-03-02 · Marina del Rey District OfficeReconsideration / removalapplicant prevailed

  Determinative passage · p.1The Appeals Board has been advised that, while this matter has been pending on reconsideration, a proposed settlement has been reached. Therefore, we will grant reconsideration, rescind the decision from which reconsideration is sought, and return this matter to the trial level for the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) to consider the proposed settlement. If the WCJ does not approve the settlement, the WCJ may issue an order reinstating the original decision and any aggrieved person may timely seek reconsideration from the reinstated decision. This is not a final decision on the merits of any of the issues pending on reconsideration.

  The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ decision, returning the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

  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.

• GLENN L. SILVERII & ASSOCIATES
• GLENN SILVERII & 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.