Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Employer can't get surveillance DVD admitted into evidence

An investigator who is testifying regarding a surveillance DVD and report should become familiar with the investigation, review the investigative reports, and view the surveillance DVD before taking the stand.

Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

Case name: Garden Time Inc., 109 NYWCLR 240 (N.Y. W.C.B. Panel 2009).

Ruling: A New York Workers' Compensation Board panel held that surveillance DVDs and investigative reports were properly precluded from a hearing.

What it means: An investigator who is testifying regarding a surveillance DVD and report should become familiar with the investigation, review the investigative reports, and view the surveillance DVD before taking the stand.

Summary: At a hearing, the carrier brought an investigator to testify regarding surveillance footage of a worker. The investigator indicated he had not conducted the investigation and had no personal knowledge of the investigation. While the investigator indicated that he had read the investigative reports, there was no indication that his review of another investigator's reports, without viewing the surveillance, would enable him to testify regarding whether the DVD was a true and correct copy of the surveillance conducted or to otherwise provide sufficient testimony regarding the investigation. Furthermore, there was no indication that the investigator who appeared to testify was an officer or supervisor or otherwise in charge of assigning work or maintaining records at the investigative agency so that he could testify to the specifics of the investigation, the dates on which the investigation was conducted, or the maintaining of reports or other records related to the investigation. Because no meaningful cross-examination could be conducted, the panel affirmed the workers' compensation law judge's decision to exclude the DVD.

Read more at the WORKERSCOMP ForumTM homepage.

March 1, 2010

Copyright 2010© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.