When the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board issued its panel decision in Eze v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., 2025 Cal. Wrk. Comp. P.D. LEXIS 73, many observers focused on the mileage‑penalty discussion. The lasting significance of the case, however, lies in the Board’s clear reaffirmation that the attorney‑client and work‑product privileges apply with full force in workers’ compensation proceedings. This post explains what happened in Eze, why the privilege ruling matters, and how claims professionals can apply the decision in daily practice.
What the WCJ Ordered and Why the Employer Objected
During discovery, the workers’ compensation judge directed FedEx Ground to produce the entire unredacted claims file for an in‑camera review. The file contained defense counsel’s emails, adjuster diary notes referencing legal advice, and other documents revealing litigation strategy. FedEx Ground petitioned for reconsideration, asserting that the order violated:
- Evidence Code section 915(a), which prohibits a tribunal from requiring disclosure of material claimed as privileged in order to rule on the claim of privilege.
- Evidence Code section 954, which protects confidential attorney‑client communications.
- Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030(a), which provides absolute protection for opinion work product.
The WCAB’s Privilege Holding
A divided WCAB panel rescinded the blanket production order. The majority relied on Regents of the University of California v. WCAB (Lappi) (2014) and the above statutes to conclude that a workers’ compensation judge may not compel the disclosure of privileged documents, even for in‑camera inspection, merely to determine whether the privilege applies. Instead, the panel ordered FedEx Ground to:
- Produce only non‑privileged portions of the file.
- Provide a detailed privilege log describing each withheld document without revealing its substance.
The ruling reinforces that the workers’ compensation forum confers no special authority to pierce privilege protections that would be sacrosanct in civil court.
The Dissent in Context
Commissioner Razo dissented, but his disagreement concerned sanctions and penalties, not the privilege ruling. He would have found that the mileage delay was attributable to the applicant’s incomplete reimbursement request and therefore would have rescinded both the Labor Code § 5813 sanction and the § 5814 penalty. He did not dispute the majority’s conclusion that privileged communications remain fully protected under the Evidence Code. Thus, on the point that matters most for discovery practice—the sanctity of privilege—the panel spoke with a unified voice.
Practical Guidance for Claims Adjusters and Administrators
The obligation to protect privileged material begins long before a discovery motion reaches the Board. While defense counsel makes the formal privilege assertions, claims personnel control the day‑to‑day integrity of the file. The following best practices will help prevent inadvertent waiver and ensure prompt, compliant responses to discovery demands:
1. Segregate privileged material from the start. Maintain a distinct electronic folder—or clearly marked physical section—for counsel correspondence, adjuster diary notes that recount legal advice, and any document containing litigation strategy. Segregation simplifies redaction and protects the integrity of privilege claims.
2. Label privileged documents contemporaneously. Every time the adjuster receives an email, memorandum, or report from counsel, mark it “Attorney‑Client Privileged” or “Work Product.” Clear labeling deters accidental production and supports later privilege logs.
3. Build a rolling privilege log. Waiting until litigation to create a log invites errors and delays. Instead, add each privileged document to a running index that notes its date, author, recipients, general subject, and the privilege invoked. When the Board requests a log, most of the work will be complete.
4. Respond promptly to overbroad subpoenas or production orders. Upon receiving a demand for the “entire” claims file, immediately serve written objections citing Evidence Code section 915 and Eze. Offer to produce non‑privileged material together with the privilege log within a reasonable period. A firm, well‑supported objection demonstrates good faith and preserves rights.
5. Educate internal staff on privilege fundamentals. Claims assistants and clerical staff often upload documents to EAMS or assemble discovery responses. Regular training reduces the risk that someone unfamiliar with privilege law will release a protected document.
6. Consult counsel the moment a discovery dispute arises. Early attorney involvement ensures that privilege objections are timely, that logs meet legal standards, and that any court hearing is well prepared.
Conclusion
The Eze decision does not create new law, but it underscores a fundamental rule: privileged communications remain protected in the workers’ compensation arena, and judges may not compel their disclosure merely to satisfy curiosity or expedite review. By maintaining disciplined file practices, labeling and logging privileged documents, and asserting objections grounded in the Evidence Code, claims professionals can comply with Board orders while safeguarding the confidential exchange of legal advice.
For questions about privilege issues, discovery strategy, or comprehensive file audits, contact Yrulegui & Roberts. Our attorneys routinely defend administrators in privilege disputes and help design protocols that keep litigation files secure and compliant.
