At a minimum, the insurer should have redacted those parts of the transcribed statement that it intended to use as impeachment evidence at hearing and released the remainder of the statement to claimant. In its brief, the insurer argues that claimant's statement that she did not know why she did not report her injury at the time it happened or her comment that she initially thought her arthritis was acting up is the type of evidence that might destroy claimant's credibility at the hearing. See Liberty's Brief at pp. Yet, at the time the insurer was obligated to disclose its investigative material, there was no other evidence in existence that was contrary to, or inconsistent with, claimant's statements in this regard. Indeed, claimant readily admitted her uncertainties in her statement.
Impeachment evidence is evidence that tends to impeach some other evidence already in existence.
Claimant stated that she didn't tell her employer prior to, or upon, her termination that she had injured her back. She further stated that she didn't know why she didn't tell her employer about the injury, she assumed that the discomfort was coming from her arthritis. This information would have been useful for impeachment purposes should Claimant have testified that she told her employer about her injury prior to her termination or if she testified that she never thought her injury was related to her arthritis. Assuming claimant originally thought her pain was related to her arthritis, she might have been motivated to testify that she thought her condition was a direct result of the alleged injury. However, the insurer does not cite these statements as a reason why it withheld the transcribed statement.