Morella Bombardini has been licensed as a psychologist in California since 2011. On November 4, 2018 she was convicted in Los Angeles County, on a plea of no contest, of a misdemeanor violation of Insurance Code § 1871.4, subdivision (a)(1), the workers’ compensation fraud statute. She was ordered to perform community service and pay more than 11,000 dollars in restitution to her employer. The conviction was dismissed in 2019 under Penal Code § 1203.4.

The opinion gives only a limited account of the underlying offense. The claim arose from her work as a psychologist at Kaiser Permanente and involved carpal tunnel syndrome. The criminal complaint originally alleged three felony counts, and the court’s minute order placed the incident on or about July 11, 2014. The Board found that she made a fraudulent workers’ compensation claim in connection with that employment, but the opinion does not say which statement or representation was false. Bombardini testified that she left Kaiser because she was in severe pain and filed the claim to obtain physical therapy for her hands. She also referred to an accusation that she had lied in a deposition about carpal tunnel syndrome, and said she wanted to show that she did have the condition. The Board treated the conviction as a crime substantially related to the practice of psychology because it involved fiscal dishonesty.

The Board of Psychology brought a disciplinary accusation based on the conviction. It also alleged that she had obtained her license by fraud by failing to disclose a 1984 conviction for writing checks with insufficient funds, but that charge was dismissed because the Board had known of the 1984 conviction before it licensed her. After a hearing held remotely in 2020, at which Bombardini represented herself, the Board placed her license on probation for five years, effective April 23, 2021. The conditions included a practice monitor, an ethics examination, coursework, quarterly reports and reimbursement of investigation costs. She did not seek judicial review within the 30 days allowed by Government Code § 11523.

Bombardini moved to Maryland in 2021 and to Oregon in 2022, which tolled the probation, and returned to California in 2023. In July 2023 she petitioned the Board for early termination of probation. At the administrative hearing she maintained that she had never intended to commit fraud and that she had in fact suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome. The Board denied the petition in a decision effective May 23, 2024. It found she had not shown rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence because she continued to deny her criminal conduct, claimed she was being unfairly punished, and described herself as a victim of circumstances.

Bombardini filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 in Sacramento County Superior Court, challenging both the 2021 probation order and the 2024 denial. Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell denied the petition in its entirety. The court ruled that the challenge to the 2021 decision was untimely and, applying the substantial evidence test, that the 2024 decision was supported by the evidence. Bombardini appealed.

In the partially published case of Bombardini v. Board of Psychology, No. C104172 (October 2026), the Third Appellate District affirmed the judgment denying the writ petition. The opinion is certified for publication except for parts II, III and IV of the Discussion, so only part I, on the standard of review, may be cited as precedent.

In the published portion, the court addressed which test a trial court applies when a licensee seeks review of a board’s refusal to lift probation early. The answer depends on whether the decision affects what the cases call a “fundamental vested right.” A person who already holds a professional license has such a right to continue practicing, so a decision revoking, suspending or restricting the license receives independent judgment review, in which the trial court reweighs the evidence. The court cited Hughes v. Board of Architectural Examiners (1998) 17 Cal.4th 763 for that principle.

Decisions on applications for a license are treated differently. There, courts have largely deferred to the agency’s expertise and ask only whether substantial evidence in the whole record supports its findings, as explained in Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130. The same deferential review applies to a person seeking reinstatement of a revoked license, who has no greater rights than a first-time applicant under Flanzer v. Board of Dental Examiners (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1392.

The court placed a petition for early termination of probation in the second category. Bombardini was not defending her license against new discipline. She was asking the Board to remove restrictions that were already final, which the court considered closer to an application for an unrestricted license. Whether a probationer can safely return to unsupervised practice is, like initial qualification, a judgment that calls on the board’s expertise. The trial court therefore applied the correct test.

On the merits, the court found substantial evidence for the Board’s conclusion that rehabilitation had not been shown. The Board’s disciplinary guidelines look both to the licensee’s state of mind, meaning appreciation of the gravity of the misconduct and remorse, and to a course of conduct showing the public would be safe. Citing Seide v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1989) 49 Cal.3d 933, the court said that acknowledging wrongdoing is an essential step toward rehabilitation. Bombardini’s statements that she never intended fraud, that she was being treated as a criminal, and that her attorneys had advised the no contest plea supported the Board’s finding that she had not accepted responsibility. Compliance with probation terms carried little weight, because good conduct is expected of someone under supervision. Supporting letters were discounted because they predated the conviction or came from authors who did not appear to know the full facts.