CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ7233546
Regular
Apr 12, 2013

REGINALD SWINTON vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, LLC, DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS, PSI

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision affirms a prior administrative law judge's finding in the case of Reginald Swinton. The Board adopted the judge's report and recommendation without further elaboration. Therefore, the original May 31, 2012, Findings and Order remain in effect. The specific details of the claim against the Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, and Seattle Seahawks were not detailed in this excerpt.

Reginald SwintonArizona CardinalsGreat Divide Insurance CompanyBerkley Specialty Underwriting ManagersDallas CowboysTravelersSeattle SeahawksPSIADJ7233546Anaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Reginald Powell

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York's standard for admitting third-party culpability evidence, as set forth in *People v Primo*, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in *Holmes v South Carolina*. Defendant Reginald Powell was convicted of the murder of Jennifer Katz and argued on appeal that the *Primo* standard infringed upon his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a complete defense by precluding evidence against Warren Powell, the victim's ex-boyfriend and life insurance beneficiary. The Court clarified that the *Primo* standard, which employs a general evidentiary balancing test, is consistent with constitutional principles as it focuses on the probative value of evidence against its potential for prejudice, delay, and confusion. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in precluding the defendant's speculative third-party culpability evidence.

Constitutional LawRight to Present DefenseThird-Party CulpabilityEvidentiary StandardProbative ValueUndue PrejudiceMurderAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. ADJ 7233546
Regular
Jun 14, 2016

REGINALD SWINTON vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, DALLAS COWBOYS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS

This case affirmed the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board's (WCAB) jurisdiction over a professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Board found that the defendant waived objections regarding insufficient connection to California and forum selection clauses by actively litigating the claim for years. These defenses were not timely raised and were thus forfeited. Therefore, the WCAB's previous award of benefits and permanent disability without apportionment was upheld.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative Industrial InjuryProfessional Football PlayerSubject Matter JurisdictionDue ProcessForum Selection ClauseWaiverReconsiderationFindings & Award & OrderLabor Code § 5500.5(c)
References
26
Case No. ADJ2736625 (OAK 0345167) ADJ6471430
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

REGINALD SCOTT vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, Reginald Scott, sought reconsideration of a previous Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding his permanent disability award and penalties against the defendant. Scott argued that Labor Code section 4658 should apply to inmates and that penalties against the defendant were improperly vacated. However, the WCAB dismissed Scott's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based solely on the fact that the petition was filed after the jurisdictional deadline.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessLabor Code Section 4658InmatesPermanent Disability AwardPenaltiesJurisdictional Time LimitService by MailOpinion and Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ2736625 (OAK 0345167) ADJ6471430
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

Reginald Scott vs. California Department of Corrections, State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves applicant Reginald Scott's petition for reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that modified his permanent disability award and vacated penalties against the defendants. Scott argued the Board erred in determining Labor Code section 4658 does not apply to inmates and that penalties should have been imposed. However, the Appeals Board dismissed Scott's petition as untimely. The Board found that Scott's petition was filed after the 25-day jurisdictional deadline, even with an extension for a weekend closure. Therefore, the Appeals Board lacked the power to consider the merits of his arguments and dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and DecisionFindings and AwardPermanent Disability AwardLabor Code section 4658InmatesPenaltiesUntimely PetitionJurisdictional Time Limit
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

People v. Swinton

The defendants appealed their convictions for assault, reckless endangerment, and endangering the welfare of a child, stemming from their strict vegetarian diet provided to their infant daughter, which led to severe malnutrition. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially convicted them. On appeal, the higher court modified the judgments by vacating the reckless endangerment conviction, deeming it a lesser-included offense of assault, but affirmed the assault and child endangerment convictions. A dissenting opinion argued for the reversal of the assault convictions, contending that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the defendants' conscious disregard of risks, but rather misguided parental beliefs. The majority, however, found the evidence legally sufficient for the remaining charges.

Criminal LawAppealChild EndangermentMalnutritionAssault First DegreeReckless Endangerment First DegreeLesser-Included OffenseParental NeglectDietary PracticesWeight of Evidence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Swinton v. Fischer

A male inmate (petitioner) faced charges of lewd conduct and interfering with an employee after exposing his genitals to female food service workers. A tier III disciplinary hearing found him guilty, though the charge of interfering with an employee was later dismissed on administrative appeal. The subsequent CPLR article 78 proceeding confirmed the finding of guilt for lewd conduct. The court concluded that substantial evidence, including the misbehavior report and witness testimony, supported the determination, noting that the petitioner's conflicting testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer to resolve.

inmate misconductlewd conductdisciplinary hearingsubstantial evidencecredibilitycorrectional facilityadministrative appealCPLR article 78judicial reviewprison discipline
References
4
Case No. ADJ8937162
Regular
Sep 24, 2015

REGINALD HARRIS vs. LETICIA CORPORATION, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the underlying order vacating submission was interlocutory and not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board also denied the petition for removal, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration would not adequately address later. The WCJ's decision to seek clarification of medical reports before determining admissibility was deemed procedurally sound. Therefore, the defendants' challenges to the admissibility of evidence and request for resubmission were premature.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAdmissibility of Medical ReportsPanel QMETreating PhysicianPermanent and Stationary ReportApportionmentLabor Code Section 5502(d)(3)
References
7
Case No. ADJ10312949
Regular
Oct 17, 2018

REGINALD WILSON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

This case involves an applicant claiming injury to his right shoulder and psyche, with the defendant seeking reconsideration of the initial award. The Appeals Board found that the psychiatric QME's opinion was not substantial evidence due to an inadequate and incorrect work history provided to the physician. Furthermore, the Board determined that the orthopedic QME's report lacked sufficient information on key issues and that the record needed further development. Therefore, the Board rescinded the award and returned the case to the WCJ for further proceedings, including requesting supplemental reports from the QMEs with accurate information.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersQualified Medical ExaminerOrthopedicPsychiatricInjury AOE/COERegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701
References
6
Case No. ADJ8245988
Regular
Sep 12, 2013

REGINALD WILSON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the judge's order vacating dismissal, and reinstated the original dismissal of the applicant's workers' compensation claim. The Board found no good cause to reopen the dismissed claim, as the applicant failed to seek timely reconsideration and his concerns about retaliatory termination were unrelated to the original injury. However, the applicant may still pursue his separate Labor Code section 132a discrimination claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Vacating Order of DismissalOrder of Dismissalreconsiderationres judicataLabor Code section 132agood causereopeningpro perminutes of hearing
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 18 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational