on what side of the bar your practice on) a claimant, apparently, need never give notice that he or she is recording an examination; or at least not give notice until they intend to produce the footage and submit it into evidence.  In <u>NYC Housing Authority</u>, 2015 NY Wrk. Comp 0768798.  claimant’s sister, who was also present at an IME, surreptitiously, and without the knowledge of the consultant, videotaped the entire examination.  Notice of that recording was not given until two months later, after defense counsel had opened litigation on the issue of ongoing disability premised upon that consultant’s report.  The WCLJ directed the claimant to turn over a copy of the video to defense counsel, but due to a failed mailing, defense counsel and the carrier were not provided with the footage, or even able to view it, until a second hearing, held nearly a month later, which was scheduled for oral summations on the pending issues.  The WCLJ ruled that the IME was not credible based in part on the footage, which apparently raised some doubt as to whether certain body sites were actually examined.   On appeal, the Board found nothing wrong with claimant’s late notice, and even excused the failed mailing noting that “the WCLJ acted within the scope of discretion by allowing the video to be admitted into evidence.”