10.25g. Surveillance Videos.

CourtKansas
Kansas Workers Compensation Settlement Reporter 10.25g. Surveillance Videos SummariesChapter 1010.25g Surveillance VideosJuly 2004. (Order) The claimant should be provided pre-trial access to the surveillance videotape. But the Board further concludes respondent should be afforded the opportunity to "lock in" claimant's testimony regarding physical ability and activities before the surveillance videotape is disclosed. The respondent has the option to take the discovery deposition of the claimant at any time before the case proceeds to hearing on the matter. The discovery deposition "locks in" claimant's testimony regarding her condition and activities. And subsequent surveillance videotape can still be utilized to depict ability and activities that conflict with the elicited testimony. Under this procedure, the fact that the videotape must be disclosed to claimant after it is taken does not lessen the ability to point out such discrepancies at the regular hearing nor provide the depiction to doctors who may have examined claimant or may have been provided a differing version of physical ability from claimant. Claimant is entitled to discovery of the surveillance videotape but respondent may take claimant's testimony before the surveillance videotape is disclosed. Russell v. Bank of America, NA, Docket No. 1,012,015. ----- But See, Dissent, the dissenting Board member would require the employer and insurance carrier to produce any surveillance videotape before claimant testified. March 1999. (Award) Three surveillance videotapes admitted into evidence despite the fact it was argued the identification of claimant in these videos was less than ideal. The Board concluded that the evidence established that is was more probably than not the claimant in the videos. Further, as a result of the videos, claimant's credibility was damaged to the point that the restrictions recommended by claimant's physician were deemed unreliable. Blurton v. LRM Industries, Inc, Docket No. 205,618. December 1998. (Ph) The Board did not find that the ALJ exceeded his jurisdiction by excluding the admission of a videotape offered after hearing testimony that the videotape was made from 8-millimeter film and that not all of the film was transferred onto the videotape. The admission of the evidence was objected to based on a chain of custody...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT