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.

Byun v. Alexis Risk Management

Court of Workers Compensation of Montana

December 5, 1994

LINDA BYUN Petitioner
v.
ALEXIS RISK MANAGEMENT Respondent.

          ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO COMPEL

          Mike McCarter JUDGE

         Summary: Respondent filed motion to compel further answers to interrogatories and production of income tax records. Interrogatories requested list of all injuries claimant had suffered, employers for the past ten years, and information about medical treatment received. Claimant's response was: "Please see the testimony the Petitioner gave in her deposition dated July 30, 1992."

         Held: If the matters identified in interrogatories were fully explored and adequately answered in a deposition, it would be oppressive to require the answering party to restate the information in answer to interrogatories. It is also unnecessary for the deponent's counsel to go through a previously taken deposition and identify the page number where information appears. Petitioner is required only to state whether her deposition provided all the information sought by the interrogatory. If the deposition did not so provide, claimant must supplement her deposition testimony in response to the interrogatories. Court declined to compel production of claimant's income tax records where such records were not calculated to lead to admissible evidence on rehabilitation benefit or medical issues raised in petition.

         Topics:

Discovery: Interrogatories. The purpose of written discovery is to provide meaningful information relevant to the issues of the case. The rule allowing discovery was not intended as a weapon to be used merely to increase the work and litigation costs of the party opponent.
Discovery: Interrogatories. If the matters identified in interrogatories were fully explored and adequately answered in a deposition, it would be oppressive to require the answering party to restate the information in answer to interrogatories. It is also unnecessary for the deponent's counsel to go through a previously taken deposition and identify the page number where information appears. Petitioner is required only to state whether her deposition provided all the information sought by the interrogatory. If the deposition did not so provide, claimant must supplement her deposition testimony in response to the interrogatories.
Discovery: Requests for Production: Income Tax Records. Court declined to compel production of claimant's income tax records where such records were not calculated to lead to admissible evidence on rehabilitation benefit or medical issues raised in petition.

         Respondent has filed a motion to compel further answers to three interrogatories and to compel production of income tax returns. This is a matter which could and should have been worked out between counsel.

         Petitioner was injured January 19, 1991. The respondent's brief informs the Court that the Montana Department of Labor has issued an initial order determining that option (c) is the first appropriate rehabilitation option for petitioner. Petitioner appealed that initial determination to a hearing examiner of the Department but further proceedings before the Department have been stayed because an issue has arisen as to whether petitioner's thoracic outlet syndrome is related to her 1991 injury. The petition seeks a determination that the syndrome was caused by the 1991 industrial accident, and asks the Court to order the insurer to pay related medical bills and reinstate temporary total disability benefits. In an alternative prayer, the petitioner seeks payment of total rehabilitation benefits under section 39-71-1023, MCA (1989).

         The interrogatories at issue herein are numbers 2, 3 and 5 of Montana School Group insurance Authority's First Discovery Requests. Those interrogatories request petitioner to list all injuries she has ever suffered, identify all employers for the last ten years, and provide information concerning medical treatment she has received. It appears that a deposition of claimant was taken some two years ago on July 30, 1992, apparently in another matter since the present petition was not filed until July 5, 1994. Based on that deposition, the petitioner provided the following similar response to each of the interrogatories:

Answer: Please see the testimony the Petitioner gave in her deposition dated July 30, 1992.

         In response to the interrogatory concerning prior injuries, petitioner added, "No insurance claims were made or litigation initiated." The full text of the interrogatories and answers is set out in the margin.[1]

         Respondent argues that it is entitled to complete answers to these interrogatories.

         The purpose of written discovery is to provide meaningful information relevant to the issues of the case. The rule allowing interrogatories was not intended as a weapon to be used merely to increase the work and litigation costs of the party opponent. If the matters identified in the interrogatories were fully explored and adequately answered in a deposition, it would be oppressive to require the answering party to restate the information in answer to interrogatories. On the other hand, the answering party has an obligation to at least verify that all of the information sought by the interrogatory was in fact provided during the deposition. If all of the ...


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.