Evidence: Depositions

Gamble v. Sears, 2007 MT 131, 337 Mont. 354, 160 P.2d 537 The Montana Supreme Court conducts de novo review of deposition testimony because it is in as good a position as the WCC to evaluate such evidence. However, the court’s overall review of the WCC’s factual findings remains deferential and limited in scope.
Hagemann v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [07/10/08] 2008 MTWCC 35 Where a deposition submitted post-trial was missing exhibits, Petitioner argued that the testimony should be excluded as the witness asserted that he reviewed documents which were not found in his file. The Court determined that it was apparent from the deposition testimony that the witness had the documents in question in front of him while testifying and that they were misplaced at a later date. The missing documents were also in evidence elsewhere in the Court record in this case. The deposition was admitted into evidence.
Gohl v. State Fund/Liberty NW [7/20/00] 2000 MTWCC 45 Claimant's deposition was admissible at trial over his objection where Mont.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) allows admission of the deposition of a party opponent regardless of whether the party testifies or is available to testify and Rule 802 Mont.R.Evid. provides that a court may adopt rules permitting additional exceptions to the hearsay rule, which the Workers' Compensation Court has accomplished through ARM 24.5.322, authorizing the admission of any deposition taken in a workers' compensation proceeding.