Okay, has this ever happened to you ?
Stephen L. Kline, Esq.
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM
stephenk@arm-law.com
Maintaining Attorney-Client Privilege
Applicant is injured and then is terminated. Applicant files
the work comp application and also adds a Labor Code sec 132a
action. The carrier has one attorney and the employer has separate
counsel for the 132a action.
Employer prepares a confidential summary for their attorney
of the applicant‘s history with the company and sends it
off to their attorney. That attorney then sends the confidential
summary to the carrier’s counsel, who in turn sends it
to the adjusting agency and the carrier … are you still
with me?
A co-defendant insurance company subpoenas the adjusting agency’s
claim files and the confidential summary is photocopied and given
to the Applicant’s attorney (AA). At the MSC, employer’s
attorney notices the confidential summary in AA’s file
and demands its return.
AA says “no way”, the privilege is waived. The Workers
Compensation Judge say return it and AA must pay $200 in sanctions.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the attorney-client
privilege and the sanctions against AA in Lamouree v WCAB (Cal
Casualty & Liberty Mutual), 70 Cal Comp Cases 640. “Because
the summary was plainly privileged, AA had an obligation to return
it to defense counsel, which he did not do. The imposition of
sanctions is an available remedy for such conduct. (Lab. Code, § 5813).”
Moral of the story. Be careful what you let be copied from your
file. If possible, have your submissions to SDT photocopy services
reviewed by attorney to redact any privileged documents. Part
of what you pay for is the protection of that attorney-client
relationship and its waiver can happen in a snap. Here it was
saved, by the skin of their teeth. You may not be so fortunate.
The Plight of Obtaining Contributions from CIGA.
Starting to be settled is the law with respect to getting contributions
from insolvent carriers through the California Insurance Guarantee
Association (CIGA). The news is not good. In a published decision,
CIGA v WCAB (Weitzman), 70 Cal Comp Cases 556 (2 nd Dist, 2005),
the Court of Appeals held that despite the general principle
that “a workers' compensation insurer that pays a claim
for which other insurers are partially responsible generally
can seek contribution from those insurers.” , the exception
to the rule is where the carrier goes insolvent and CIGA stands
in their shoes.
CIGA successfully argued that Insurance Code section 1063.1,
subdivisions (c)(5) and (c)(9)(i) and (ii), clearly states “that
CIGA is not responsible for reimbursing solvent insurers where,
the solvent insurer paid workers' compensation benefits due to
injuries sustained during periods of coverage by the insolvent
insurers.”
Section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(5) provides: '' 'Covered claims'
does not include any obligations to insurers, insurance pools,
or underwriting associations, nor their claims for contribution,
indemnity, or subrogation, equitable or otherwise, except as
otherwise provided in this chapter.''
Section 1063.1, subdivision (c)(9)(ii) provides: '' 'Covered claims'
does not include . . . any claim by any person other than the original
claimant under the insurance policy in his or her own name . . .
and does not include any claim asserted by an assignee or one claiming
by right of subrogation, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.''
More critical attention is called for with dates of injuries
for cumulative trauma claims. The Courts are upholding CIGA’s
very strong position, that we don’t reimburse any other
carrier.

|