Keefe, Campbell & Associates, LLC

Editor’s comment: We want to follow-up to tell you this is a concept we feel should and must be used by all claims handlers.

Here are some additional thoughts:

• Web-cams don’t have a track record because no one is using web-cam statements yet. Anywhere. But we are confident they are coming.

• Always ask the witness for their permission to take their statement. Always confirm the witness is freely and voluntarily giving their statement and is telling the truth on all issues to the best of their ability. Ask them if they will tell the same story at court and under oath when and if called.

• Most of our clients and insurance carriers still use hand-written statements that we consider illustrative but basically worthless. Handwritten statements don’t tell a claims manager, adjuster or defense attorney the true story of the strength and demeanor of a rebuttal witness. It is much more compelling to actually have someone speaking to a camera and saying precisely what they would testify to if asked in court under oath.

• The great thing about web-cams is the claims handler can take a statement from someone at their workplace and grill them to your heart’s content without leaving your desk. The cost to your company is about $50 for your desk and $50 for the location at the workplace along with the cost of a blank CD-Rom or DVD. That isn’t much money to allow you to view the strength of your defense(s) in a major claim. And you can easily email the file to your defense attorney for their thoughts.

• If the person giving the statement seems evasive or hiding something or making something up, it truly helps to hear and see it. And if three people giving such statements totally corroborate the claimant, you had better accept such claims.

• Please understand the recorded CD or DVD and the statement on it isn’t admissible by itself—it is the definition of a hearsay statement. However, the person taking the statement might be able to testify about what was said in the statement under the right circumstance.

• The person in the video can always confirm it was their statement and was accurate when recorded. It is a consistent prior statement. The witness can also later deny or change what they said or “clarify” it. It will be up to the Arbitrator to rule when and if they are telling the truth.

• In the right circumstance, the recorded statement legally can and should be used to help jog someone’s memory. In evidence class, it would be called “past recollection recorded.” Any witness can review it before or during testimony to refresh their recollection.

• As to refusing to participate in a web-cam statement, we don’t think your company should fire people for not cooperating in an accident investigation—you may get sued for doing so. But you certainly can tell them it is your policy and they need to follow policy.

• If the injured worker doesn’t cooperate with an investigation, you shouldn’t fire them but, if there are other facts supporting it, you could deny the claim.

• And we would truly ramp up a complete accident investigation if the injured worker avoided giving a web-cam statement.

• We are also hoping there are Petitioner/Plaintiff lawyers who would drop claims if you had two or three rebuttal witnesses give web-cam statements confirming the injured worker was lying.

• All of it is a project in the works. We will keep reporting as results come in.