Legal Opinion

Cave v. Conrad

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 2, 2000No. Case No. 00CA645PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Harsha, Judge.

The Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) appeals from a judgment entered by the Pike County Court of Common Pleas ordering the BWC to reimburse appellee Yulonda Cave for the videography costs of the depositions of her expert witnesses. The BWC assigns the following error:

“The trial court erred in taxing the videographer charges for the videotape depositions of two physicians, who testified on behalf of the plaintiff-claimant, to the defendant, Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation under R.C. 4123.512(F).”

For the reasons that follow, we…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Moore v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Benda v. FanaOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. State ex rel. Williams v. ColasurdOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Akers v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Williamson v. Ameritech Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cave v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Cave v. ConradOhio Supreme Court · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API