 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Branstutter Concrete Construction v. Jones2/14/2003
June 6, 2001, and gave his deposition on June 19, 2001, 25 days after the proof taking order was entered, and 20 days before Branstutter's notice of denial or acceptance was due. The deposition date was also before counsel for Branstutter made an entry of appearance.
On September 25, 2001, the final hearing was held. At the hearing, Branstutter claimed that it had not received notice of Dr. Owen's June 19, 2001, deposition and, as a result, had been denied to opportunity to cross-examine the physician. As a result, over the objection of Jones, the ALJ permitted Branstutter to submit as evidence outside of proof time the June 6, 2001, Form 107 medical report of Dr. Owen. Again, we adopt the reasoning of the Board with regard to this issue:
Regarding...the ALJ's ruling allowing Branstutter to file the Form 107 of Dr. Owen after the close of proof time, we also find no abuse of discretion. Dr. Owen testified from and referred to the medical report in question at the time of his deposition. Furthermore, we are at a loss to understand why Jones is attempting to conceal portions of his own expert witness' medical findings. Nevertheless, it has long been accepted that the fact-finder has the authority to control the taking and presentation of proof and that it is not unreasonable for an Administrative Law Judge to direct additional proof to be presented or prohibit evidence in order to maintain a reasonable element of due process. See Yocom v. Butcher, Ky. App., 551 S.W.2d 841 (1977); Cornett v. Corbin Materials, Inc., Ky., 807 S.W.2d 56 (1971); see also Ajax v. Collins, 269 Ky. 222, 106 S.W.2d 617 (1937); Searcy v. Three Point Coal Co., Ky., 134 S.W.2d 228 (1939).
Finally, Jones contends that the ALJ erred by allowing Branstutter to introduce pictures of him filling up a pickup truck with gas and loading gas cans into the back of the truck.
KRE 901(a) governs the authentication and identification of evidence:"The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." "This requirement may be met by the testimony of a witness with knowledge of the document by his testimony that the document is what it is claimed to be. KRE 901(b)(1); Mollette v. Kentucky Personnel Bd., Ky. App., 997 S.W.2d 492, 495 (1999). Under KRE 901, a party seeking to introduce an item of tangible evidence need not satisfy an "absolute" identification requirement, and evidence is admissible if the offering party's evidence reasonably identifies the item. Grundy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 25 S.W.3d 76, 80 (2000). Wide discretion over issues relating to the admissibility of tangible evidence is granted. Id.
We are persuaded that the photographs of the private investigator were authenticated and identified sufficient to support their admission pursuant to KRE 901. At the hearing, Jones testified that the pictures were of him and by his own testimony authenticated the pictures. The authentication requirements of KRE 901 were complied with and the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of the photographs.
For the foregoing reasons the opinion of the Workers' Compensation Board is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the ALJ for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|