Sec. 9. No person shall be excused from attending and
testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence,
memoranda, and other records before the department, the review board,
an administrative law judge, or the duly authorized representative of
any of them, in obedience to the subpoena of any of them in any cause
or proceeding before any of them on the ground that the testimony or
evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend
to incriminate the person or subject the person to a penalty or
forfeiture, but no individual shall be prosecuted or subjected to any
penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or
thing concerning which the person is compelled after having claimed
the privilege against self-incrimination to testify or produce evidence,
documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying
shall not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury
committed in so testifying. Any testimony or evidence submitted in due
course before the department, the review board, an administrative law
judge, or any duly authorized representative of any of them, shall be
deemed a communication presumptively privileged with respect to any
civil action except actions to enforce the provisions of this article.
Formerly: Acts 1947, c.208, s.1809. As amended by
P.L.144-1986, SEC.107; P.L.135-1990, SEC.13; P.L.108-2006,
SEC.35; P.L.171-2016, SEC.17.
Notes of Decisions
Penny v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 852 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 52× “Penny asserts on appeal the Review Board should not have penalized her for improperly receiving unemployment benefits because she had immunity pursuant to Ind.Code § 22-4-17-9. We agree the statute provided Penny immunity, and the Department, having invoked the statute to force…”
Roukaya Ali v. All. Home Health Care, LLC, L.J.L. Enter., Inc., & Larry J. Logsdon, 53 N.E.3d 420 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 22-4-17-9 states in pertinent part, Any testimony or evidence submitted in due course before the'board, the department, the review board, an administrative law judge, or any duly authorized representative of any of them shall be deemed a communication…”
Russell v. Keyes Fibre Co., 771 F. Supp. 951 (N.D. Ind. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code § 22-4-17-9 states in part: “Any testimony or evidence submitted in due course before the [unemployment] board, review board, an administrative law judge, or any duly authorized representative of any of them shall be deemed a communication presumptively privileged…”
Moss v. Putnam Cnty. Hosp., 860 F. Supp. 2d 659 (S.D. Ind. 2011).
· cites it 16× “IDWD now also argues that Section 22-4-19-6(b) must be read in conjunction with Ind.Code § 22-4-17-9 to conclude that the information sought by Putnam is privileged, and that federal law recognizes such privilege.”
Forrest Perkins v. Mem'l Hosp. of South Bend (Ind. 2020).
· cites it 4× “§ 22-4-34-2 (1978); see also I.C. § 22-4-17-9 (2006) (“No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing [documents], and other records before .”
Forrest Perkins v. Mem'l Hosp. of South Bend (Ind. 2020).
· cites it 4× “§ 22-4-34-2 (1978); see also I.C. § 22-4-17-9 (2006) (“No person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing [documents], and other records before .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.