The Appeals Board will take up issues of when an occupational disease claim is ripe and the extent of attorney-client privilege at its next set of oral arguments.

The arguments, to be conducted by videoconference, will take place on September 28.

They will kick off at 9:00 a.m. Central Time with Cody v. G.UB.MK Constructors. In the case, the trial court denied a summary judgment motion where G.UB.MK argued that the date of injury and the existence of Cody’s workers’ compensation claim is disputed, since Cody continues to work for it as a full-time truckdriver with no restrictions.

Cody filed a claim alleging a 2016 date of injury from exposure to coal ash. G.UB.MK asserted he produced no medical reports stating that he was unable to perform his job duties or needs restrictions as a result of the exposure, but Cody filed declarations from physicians to support his opposition to the motion.

The trial judge found genuine issues of material fact.

In the second case, Philalom v. State Farm, the trial judge permitted Philalom to discover notes from a medical case manager.

State Farm argued that communications from a medical case manager working for its workers’ compensation carrier’s third-party administrator with its attorney are protected from discovery under attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.

The trial court disagreed, relying on administrative rules for medical case managers that say they cannot assist with either party’s investigation of claims.

The public is invited to observe the arguments (Links are in the docket here) but cannot speak during the proceedings.