A Missouri workers compensation lawyer filed a subpoena on behalf of his client, the injured worker, to get the video tape of the injury his client sustained. Presumably to rebut the typical defense allegation that the injured employee is faking. Not surprisingly, the defense tried to prevent the production of the surveillance video, because the video would show the employee was legitimately injured and take away their bogus defense.
At the trial level, the Missouri work comp judge ruled "[i]t is clear in [Section 287.215] that videotapes, motion pictures or visual reproductions of an image of an employee are not discoverable by employee." Thus preventing the injured employee's attorney from obtaining the video of the injury. The case was appealed and the circuit level agreed that the video should be turned over as it is a statement as defined by the discovery rules and there was substantial need, and thus discoverable. The case was appealed to the appellate court where not only was the circuit courts ruling upheld, but the appellate court ruled that the substantial need portion was not required, the video is a statement and thus is discoverable, even without substantial need.
"We need not consider whether Feltz demonstrated a "substantial need" or "undue hardship" because such proof was unnecessary to obtain production of the surveillance video pursuant to Rule 56.01(b)(3).3 In McConaha, the Supreme Court expressly held that Rule 56.01(b)(3), applied through Section 287.560, permits the discovery of surveillance videotapes as a "statement" without the need of a showing of undue hardship. 979 S.W.2d at 189-90."
Full Workers Compensation Opinion - Feltz v. Ford, WD Missouri 5.2011
Injured at work? You need a skilled and experience Missouri workers compensation lawyer. Contact St Louis personal injury attorney Ben Sansone for a free, no obligation meeting to discuss your rights.
