287.215. Injured employee to be furnished copy of his statement, otherwise inadmissible as evidence — statement, what is not to be included. — No statement in writing made or given by an injured employee, whether taken and transcribed by a stenographer, signed or unsigned by the injured employee, or any statement which is mechanically or electronically recorded, or taken in writing by another person, or otherwise preserved, shall be admissible in evidence, used or referred to in any manner at any hearing or action to recover benefits under this law unless a copy thereof is given or furnished the employee, or his dependents in case of death, or their attorney, within thirty days after written request for it by the injured employee, his dependents in case of death, or by their attorney. The request shall be directed to the employer or its insurer by certified mail. The term "statement" as used in this section shall not include a videotape, motion picture, or visual reproduction of an image of an employee.
Notes of Decisions
Fisher v. Waste Mgmt. of Missouri, 58 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 70× “The dictionary definition of "statement" cannot be stretched to accommodate the majority's policy preference that the definition of "statement" under section 287.215, RSMo *528 1994, should be the same as that under other discovery provisions.”
State Ex Rel. Feltz v. Bob Sight Ford, Inc., 341 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 45× “” BSF moved to quash the deposition and subpoena duces tecum, arguing the surveillance videotape is not considered a “statement” that an employer is required to produce pursuant to Section 287.215. 1 Administrative Law Judge Emily Fowler (ALJ) sustained the motion, stating “[i]t…”
Hendricks v. Motor Freight Corp., 570 S.W.2d 702 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 9× “They are: (1) the question of the sufficiency of the competent evidence to support the award; (2) the alleged error in the exclusion of certain written statements of respondent and a state trooper because copies of the statements were not supplied to respondent within seven days…”
State v. Smith, 522 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Here, when the statute as a whole is considered, the intent of the legislature and the language of the statute are both intrinsically clear.”
Parsons v. Steelman Transp., Inc., 335 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “y panels on a trailer owned by Steelman, Claimant was not covered by the Act because he was performing work incidental to his duties as an exempt-from-coverage owner-operator; and (3) that the Commission erred in admitting into evidence a lease-purchase agreement, which Claimant…”
Erbschloe v. Gen. Motors Corp., 823 S.W.2d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 12× “Prior to the hearing, Employee asked Employer to produce all statements and other evidence relating to statements of Employee pursuant to § 287.215, RSMo 1986. Employer did not produce the videotape.”
State Ex Rel. Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Koehr, 853 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. 1993).
· cites it 4× “1992), held that a surveillance video was not a statement made or given by an employee and therefore was not a discoverable statement under § 287.215, RSMo 1986, of the workers’ compensation law.”
Burlison v. Dep't of Pub. Saf., 478 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “banc 2001), and the legislature’s decision to amend Section 287.215 in 2005. Employer notes that Fisher held that video surveillance was discoverable under Section 287.”
Blackwell v. Puritan-Bennett Corp., 901 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Both the ALJ and the Commission disallowed Burgstead’s testimony because of the mandate contained in § 287.215 RSMo.1994. That statute provides: No statement in writing made or given by an injured employee, whether taken and transcribed by a stenographer, signed or unsigned by…”
Clare v. Wilson Freight, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “Clare constituted a violation of § 287.215, RSMo. 1986, mandating reversal.”
Taliaferro v. Barnes Hosp., 586 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “The objection was made by the employee to its admission under § 287.215, RSMo Supp.1975, on the ground that she had not been furnished a copy of the report.”
Deffendoll v. Stupp Bros. Bridge & Iron Co., 415 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 3× “Appellant’s second point is that the statement was not admissible and should not be considered on review because the respondents failed to comply with the Section 287.215, RSMo. 1959, V.A.M.S. Said section provides that no statement given by an injured employee shall be…”
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.