Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Industrial Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Ryan

Court of Workers Compensation of Montana

January 25, 1994

INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY Petitioner
v.
ROBERTA C. RYAN Respondent - Cross Petitioner.

          ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY; ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S MOST RECENT MOTIONS; ORDER DENYING CERTIFIED COPIES; ORDER SETTING TRIAL

          Mike McCarter JUDGE

         The Court has before it the following motions:

(1) Motion To Exclude Witness (filed by petitioner) and;
(2) Motion For Reinstating TTD Benefits, Taking Depositions Of Witnesses, And Reconsider Decision For Denial Of Lump Sum Advance (filed by respondent).
(3)Motion To Order The Petitioner To Submit Certified Copies (filed by respondent).

         Since both parties raise matters regarding depositions, I will address those matters together.

         DISCUSSION

         1. Depositions

         Petitioner is seeking an order barring respondent's husband from attending and participating in any depositions which may be taken. Based on Mr. Ryan's past involvement in this case, there is good reason to believe that Mr. Ryan would inject himself into any deposition he might attend. The Court doubts that he would remain a silent observer, and has already ruled that he cannot represent his wife. Petitioner's motion will therefore be granted.

         Ms. Ryan asks that the Court direct petitioner to depose its witnesses prior to setting a trial date, but then asks that the Court award her financial relief so that she can attend any such depositions. The Court has no authority or funds to finance Ms. Ryan's travel to Montana for depositions.

         Ms. Ryan's lack of funds to attend depositions creates a dilemma. Under this Court's rules, a deposition may be submitted for the Court's consideration irrespective of the availability of a witness. ARM 24.5.322 (10). Thus, Ms. Ryan's impecuniousness creates the possibility that petitioner could present its entire case through depositions taken in the absence of Ms. Ryan, thereby effectively depriving her of an opportunity for cross-examination. However, ARM 24.5.322 (10), also allows for exceptions. The rule provides:

(10) Regardless of the availability of a witness or party to testify at trial, the circumstances of workers' compensation cases make it desirable, in the interest of justice, that a deposition of a witness or a party may be used by any party for any purpose unless the court restricts such usage upon a finding that the interests of justice would be served thereby. [Emphasis added.]

         I find that allowing the wholesale admission of depositions under the circumstances of this case would not serve the interests of justice. The rule therefore shall not apply in this case, and no deposition, other than a deposition of a party offered by the opposing party, shall be admitted as evidence unless the offering party strictly complies with Rule 804, Mont.R.Evid. For purposes of Rule 804, if petitioner properly notices a deposition and the witness is unavailable to testify at trial, Ms. Ryan will be deemed to have been afforded an opportunity to examine the witness even though she does not actually attend the deposition.

         Since this case was commenced by the petition of the insurer against an unrepresented, out-of-state, and initially reluctant claimant, I also find it appropriate to adopt further limitations on the taking of depositions. At least 21 calendar days notice shall be given with respect to depositions taken by petitioner. Further, Ms. Ryan's deposition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.