Videotaped Deposition Expenses May Be Taxed As Costs
Cave v. Conrad (2/27/02), 94 Ohio St.3d 299.
Issue: If a claimant wins at trial, can the claimant receive reimbursement for both the videotaping and the stenographic transcription of the deposition as costs of the case?
Background: Cave won a trial on the allowance of an additional condition.
The trial court ordered the BWC to pay videotaped deposition expenses. The Court of Appeals held that R.C. §4123.512(F) entitled Cave to recover the expense of videotaping the deposition in addition to the stenographic transcription costs as the cost of the legal proceeding.
Decision: Supreme Court affirms.
Court rejects BWC’s argument that it should not have to pay the costs of videotaping because R.C. §4123.512(D) only requires it to pay for stenographic transcription. The Court states that under R.C. §4123.512(D), the injured worker never bears responsibility for stenographic deposition costs, whether they win or lose at trial.
The term “costs of legal proceedings” in R.C. §4123.512(F) is broader than the term “cost of deposition” in R.C. §4123.512(D). The statute provides reimbursement of costs to successful claimants in workers’ compensation appeals to minimize the expense incurred by the injured employee.
Court rejects BWC’s argument that costs taxable to the nonprevailing party are allowed only by statute. Civil cases in general differ from workers’ compensation claims; under a workers’ compensation claim, an injured worker may recover relatively modest amounts.