Discovery: In Camera Inspection

Church v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois [5/1/97] 1997 MTWCC 22 Based on review by hearing examiner, work product protection extended to notes of claims adjuster regarding discussions with attorney and recommendations from attorney.

Church v. Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois [4/24/97] 1997 MTWCC 22 Applying the standards regarding attorney-client privilege and work product articulated in earlier WCC decisions (Adels v. Cigna Ins. Co., WCC No. 9307-6831; Blount v. Conagera, Inc., WCC No. 9304-6769; Yager v. Montana Schools Group Ins. Co., WCC 9308-6872; Wetzel v. Ash Grove Cement, WCC No. 9108-6216), hearing examiner ordered production of several categories of documents, but held the following documents protected by work product doctrine: insurer's reserve information and rationale, notes regarding general settlement and discussion with the employer, mediation, estimated liability sheet, and letters setting out internal discussion about settlement. Attorney-client privilege and work product held to protect claims adjuster's notes regarding discussion with another claims adjuster and employer regarding liability in case.

Field v. National Union Fire Insurance Company [03/24/95] 1995 MTWCC 23 Following filing of respondent’s motion to compel production of certain medical records, claimant represented that the records would be obtained and reviewed and, if the parties cannot reach agreement to terms of production, in camera review by the Court would be requested. Under these circumstances, the Court defers ruling on the motion to compel as ruling may not be necessary.
Mutchie v. Old Republic Ins. Co. [01/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 3 Personnel manual was produced and issues involving telephone records will be covered in deposition. With regard to personnel file, with the employer concerned the claimant is making a fishing expedition to support a potential wrongful discharge lawsuit, and claimant contending he seeks references to prior back problems, the file will be reviewed by the employer’s attorney for identification of materials relating to back problems, then produced in its entirely for in camera review by the Court.