Treatment has been deemed to be a wrongful destruction of evidence. Our research found any case, in which the seeking and receiving of medical However, the parties have cited no case, nor has That reason, we cannot say that the doctrine of spoliation could not apply in Purpose of hindering an opponent's ability to prosecute or defend a claim. It is conceivable thatĮvidence in Workers' Compensation cases could be intentionally destroyed for the Hamid, 856 S.W.2d 51, 57 (Missouri declined to recognize an independent tort of spoliation of the evidence finding that its evidentiary spoliation doctrine applied in cases where there was intentional destruction of evidence, indicating "fraud and a desire to suppress the truth." Id.)ĭestruction of evidence may occur in workers compensation proceedings, weĭecline to adopt Brawdy's position that it is a doctrine of civil litigation,īut not one applicable to workers' compensation cases. "If applicable, destruction of evidence without a satisfactory explanation gives rise to an inference unfavorable to the spoliator." Brown v. "Spoliation occurs when evidence relevant to prospective civil litigation is destroyed, adversely affecting the ability of a litigant to prove his or her claim." Patel v. ♤ With respect to the allegation of spoliation of the evidence, Manpower claims that Brawdy's surgery destroyed any evidence it might have used to defeat the reopening of the case. The order was not supported by any competent medical evidence. Workers' Compensation Court erred in denying its defenses. The defenses wereĭenied and, after trial, the court found that Brawdy had a change of conditionįor the worse and awarded her temporary total disability benefits. The evidence and untimely filing of the petition to reopen. Insurance company (collectively "Manpower") asserted two defenses, spoliation of Surgery on her back and then filed to reopen her workers' compensation caseĬlaiming a change of condition for the worse.
She filed her workers'Ĭompensation claim and was awarded 6.5% disability. She fell off of a ladder and hurt her lower back. A three-judge panel of the Workers' Compensation Court unanimouslyĮmployed by Manpower and was working temporarily at the York International It specifically denied employer's defenses of spoliation of theĮvidence and that claimant failed to give timely notice of additional medical Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent Becky Brawdy.Ĭourt found that claimant Becky Brawdy sustained a pathological change ofĬondition for the worse to her low back and ordered temporary total disabilityīenefits. Custar, PIERCE COUCH HENDRICKSON BAYSINGER & GREEN, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Petitioners,Ĭharles Simons, BOETTCHER, RYAN, MARTIN & BISHER, PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANELĭavid B. THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT, Respondents. THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Division I
0 kommentar(er)
