The Right to Discovery vs. Privacy and Privilege. Applicant was working for Tobar Industries, when she sustained a cumulative trauma to her arms & neck ending on January 1, 2007. Tobar Industries terminated her employment on January 28, 2009, claiming economic business necessity. Applicant filed a LC §132a claim, alleging that she had been fired because she had filed a workers' compensation claim. What constitutes allowable discovery to prove a LC §132a claim? To sustain her burden of proving her case for discrimination under LC §132a, applicant's attorney designed a very comprehensive discovery plan. On June 1, 2011, applicant issued a Notice of Deposition for the Person Most Knowledgeable (PMK) at Tobar Industries, along with a Request for Production of Documents. Defendant claimed that the documents were privileged, so the judge conducted an in camera review and then ordered that the Defendant should release the documents pursuant to applicant's Motion to Produce. > Read more.

CWCI Scorecard Looks at Spinal Disorder Claims in California Workers' Comp. The California Workers' Compensation Institute has released the second edition of its "Injury Scorecard" research series, providing detailed data on accident year (AY) 2001 to 2011 workers' compensation claims experience for cases in which the primary diagnosis was a spine disorder with spinal cord or root involvement. The new Scorecard is based on an analysis of 30,293 California job injury claims that resulted in total payments of more than $2.1 billion. The Scorecard notes that over the 11-year span of the study, these "spine disorder" claims accounted for only 1.4% of California job injury claims, but 6.9% of all paid losses. > Read more.

Ex Parte Communications With QME. WCAB, granting applicant's petition for removal in which applicant sought reversal of WCJ's disqualification of panel QME, rescinded WCJ's order disqualifying panel QME pursuant to LC 4062.3(f) and ordering replacement panel after panel QME called defense counsel's office to request payment of his deposition fee prior to deposition, when WCAB found that LC 4062.3(f) and 8 CCR 35(k) are expressly for protection of aggrieved party, i.e., party who did not have ex parte communication, and that although applicant in this case was aggrieved party, she elected not to disqualify panel QME and proceed with a new panel QME. See Berke panel decision.

Reminder: Be sure to check the subsequent history of a case before citing to it.