In Fischer v Waste Management, (Mo.banc 2002), Silent” video tapes (without audio portion) are not subject to discovery pursuant to 287.215, ALJ improperly excluded tapes. This confirms prior law on this subject.

In Giddens v K.C. Southern Railway, 29 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. 2000), Claimant received circuit court jury award for left hand injury while building a railroad bed. The Court found the employer violated Civil Procedure Rule 56.01(3) and sanctioned it by excluding the third deposition. The court found the employer was not prejudiced by excluding the last “gotcha” deposition since the tapes were admitted. The court divided on whether the disclosure was seasonal. Judge Wolf suggested a 30-day time limit and that the disclosure more than 7 months in advance before trial was viewed as sufficiently timely by the other judges. (This case just illustrates that under the Civil Rules of Procedure video tapes are admitted, and they are not in workers’ compensation).

In State ex rel. McConaha v Allen, 979 S.W.2d 188 (Mo.banc. 1998), transferred from the Eastern District (E.D.) appellate court to the Supreme Court reversed the Eastern District and held that a claimant can use a subpoena duces tecum directed towards the office of a medical expert that had reviewed a surveillance tape in order to obtain the tape which was incorporated in his report, since it is a ‘statement” as defined in the civil rules governing the taking of depositions.