ADJ13909512 · March 17, 2026

The WCAB found that SISF did not provide an adequate basis for proving the contested settlement documents were relevant or would lead to relevant evidence, and that the petition to compel should be denied to protect privacy rights.

From the decision · page 11Ultimately, when weighing the privacy rights here, SISF did not provide an adequate basis for proving that the contested documents are relevant or will lead to relevant evidence. As such, we will grant the Petition as one for Reconsideration, rescind the F&O and substitute an order denying the Petition to Compel.

No petition for third party credit has been filed in this matter.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Without a filed petition, the basis for requesting settlement documents for credit is premature and unsupported.

From the decision · page 10(Lab. Code, § 3861.) First, a petition for third party credit has not been filed in this matter and is therefore not at

Settlement proceeds were received by decedent's son and daughter, who are not claimants in the workers' compensation death case.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Settlement proceeds to non-claimants are not relevant to the workers' compensation death benefits claim.

From the decision · page 10Second, even if a credit petition were filed, there is unlikely to be any overlap in compensation as an inter vivos claim at the WCAB was never filed on behalf of the decedent. The evidence is not clear as to who was a party to the settlements at issue here. However, Brayton alleges that it was only Eric, decedent's son, and Katrina, decedent's daughter, who were recipients of proceeds of the settlement.3

Death benefits compensate dependents for loss of support, independent of the deceased employee's claim for disability compensation.

Favours Applicant prevailed

This legal distinction means civil settlements to non-dependents do not affect death benefits liability.

From the decision · page 10When an injury causes death to an employee, an employer is liable for an additional "death benefit, to be allowed to the dependents..." (Lab. Code, § 4701(b).) That is, by statute, death benefits do not compensate the deceased employee for their injury. Instead, death benefits compensate the deceased employee's dependents for the loss of support that was provided by the employee during their lifetime. (Lab. Code, § 4701, 4702.) The courts have frequently explained that the "dependent's right...to death benefits...is `independent and severable from the employee's claim for disability compensation.'" (Berkebile v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 940, 944 [48 Cal.Comp.Cases 438], quoting Zenith Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 176, 187 [46 Cal.Comp.Cases 1126], italics added; Lab. Code, § 4701(b), 4702, 4703.) In other words, death benefits are a separate species of benefit that belong strictly to the dependent and are independent of any workers' compensation benefits owed to the deceased employee.

Defendants did not provide any basis for how settlement documents are relevant to liability or credit claims.

Favours Applicant prevailed

Lack of demonstrated relevance supports denial of the petition to compel to protect privacy rights.

From the decision · page 11Defendants do not provide any basis as to how the settlement documents will be relevant to adjudicating liability. Using the considerations outlined in Valley Bank, supra, defendants have alternative discovery options for disputing liability. For compensability defenses, defendants need only rely on the medical legal process pursuant to section 4060 and medical records. Not only have the medical records been provided to the defendants, but the records admitted at trial have ample leads to additional records should SISF believe they are not receiving all records. The Superior Court records, alone, include depositions and interrogatories from the decedent which discuss exposure and list all or most of the medical facilities where he received treatment. Moreover, the very nature of expert reporting in civil litigation tends to be much less reliable than the treatment records in determining liability in workers' compensation matters.

Labor Code section 5708

Liberal discovery allowed under Labor Code section 5708.

Supports broad discovery but balanced against privacy rights.

From the decision · page 7Section 5708 allows liberal, broad-reaching discovery. (IBM Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Bd., (2001) 66 Cal.Comp.Cases 277, 278 (writ den.).) Generally, there is a policy of favoring liberal pre-trial discovery that may reasonably lead to relevant and admissible evidence in workers' compensation cases. (Allison v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 654, 663 [64 Cal.Comp.Cases 624].) Section 5708 mandates that we are not "bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiry in the manner, through oral testimony and records, which is best calculated to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties and carry out justly the spirit and provisions of this division." (Lab. Code, § 5708.)

Evidence Code section 1123

Settlement agreements prepared in mediation are discoverable under Evidence Code section 1123.

No evidence settlement documents were prepared in mediation, so this does not apply here.

From the decision · page 8Evidence Code section 1123 explicitly allows settlement agreements prepared in the course of mediation to be exempt from the protections surrounding mediation and be both admissible and discoverable. Yet, there is no evidence that the settlement documents were effectuated through mediation or include other communications that might be protected. Pursuant to Evidence Code 1060, the holder of the privilege is the owner of a trade secret. Brayton has not presented evidence to suggest that the decedent was the owner of relevant trade secrets, therefore this privilege cannot apply either.

Attorney-client privilege

Attorney-client privilege survives death but requires evidence to apply.

Record incomplete to determine application of privilege to withheld documents.

From the decision · page 8We first note that even though decedent can no longer assert the attorney client privilege on his own behalf, the privilege survives his death, and Brayton is still bound by it. Moreover, upon his death, we presume that applicant's children became his heirs, and the privileges that belonged to decedent regarding those documents that concerned him likely still apply. The record here is incomplete, and we cannot reach the issue of the application of the attorney-client privilege without more.

Labor Code section 3861

Credit for third party recovery requires a petition and relevance to compensation owed to decedent under Labor Code section 3861.

No petition for credit filed; settlement documents not relevant to death benefits claim.

From the decision · page 9In looking at valuation and the possibility of a third party credit, the basis is premature and without support as SISF has not articulated a basis for credit or how decedent's settlements in the civil case will affect valuation of this claim for death benefits by applicants. Section 3861 states:

Applicants' counsel stated Brayton has served all non-privileged materials; only settlement documents are withheld.

From the decision · page 7We agree with the WCJ that the statement on the record that Brayton has now served all non-privileged materials is accepted. Therefore, we will only address the matter as it relates to the settlement documents outlined as being withheld in Joint Exhibit 1.

Defendants did not provide adequate basis for relevance of settlement documents to liability or credit claims.

From the decision · page 11Defendants do not provide any basis as to how the settlement documents will be relevant to adjudicating liability. Using the considerations outlined in Valley Bank, supra, defendants have alternative discovery options for disputing liability. For compensability defenses, defendants need only rely on the medical legal process pursuant to section 4060 and medical records. Not only have the medical records been provided to the defendants, but the records admitted at trial have ample leads to additional records should SISF believe they are not receiving all records. The Superior Court records, alone, include depositions and interrogatories from the decedent which discuss exposure and list all or most of the medical facilities where he received treatment. Moreover, the very nature of expert reporting in civil litigation tends to be much less reliable than the treatment records in determining liability in workers' compensation matters.