The Administrator of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation appeals a judgment entered by the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court ordering thе Administrator to reimburse Cabletron Systems, Inc. (“Cabletron”) for the costs advanced by Cabletron for videotape depositions of physicians and the costs for written transcripts of these depositions.
Appellant assigns one error phrased as a statement of the issue:
“Whethеr the trial court erred in ordering the defendant, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, to pay for both the videotape and stenographic costs associated with the depositions of the physicians who testified at trial on behalf of the employer.”
Pursuant to R.C. 4123.519, appellee appealed to the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas from a decision of the Dayton Regional Board of Review allowing Stella Clark’s workers’ compensation claim. Thereafter on December 17, 1990, Clark filed a complaint with the court alleging that she contracted chronic bronchiolitis while employed with appellee and requesting a judgment granting her the right to participate in thе Workers’ Compensation Fund. In a jury trial, appellee presented videotape depositions of two physicians. On May 5, 1992, the jury found in favоr of appellee Cabletron and against appellant and Clark, deciding that Clark was not entitled to participate in the workers’ compensation system. The court entered judgment on the jury verdict on May 22, 1992 and stated:
“[C]osts of this case, including all costs assessable by virtue of R.C. 4123.519 for the costs of depositions filed in court, and copies thereof, shall be taxed against defendant-appellee the Bureаu of Workers’ Compensation.”
On August 10, 1992, appellee filed a motion to tax costs and seeking an order compelling appellant tо reimburse appellee for the expert fees paid to the physicians for their deposition testimony and the costs of videotaping and transcribing the depositions. In its judgment entry filed September 24,1992, the trial court ordered appellant to reimburse appellee for the transcript and videotape charges but not for the expert witness fees. Appellant timely appealed. Appellee does not challenge the denial of the expert witness fees.
*156 Appellant’s only argument on appeal is that it should not be required, pursuant to R.C. 4123.519(C), to pay the costs of both the video depositions and the written transcripts although it concedes it must pay at least one of the charges. Accordingly, we must dеcide whether the statute precludes the trial court from ordering appellant to pay both sets of costs. Interpretation of а statute presents us with a legal question which we independently analyze without deference to the trial court’s decision.
R.C. 4123.519(C) provides in part:
“Any party may file with thе clerk prior to the trial of the action a deposition of any physician taken in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Code, which deposition may be read in the trial of the action even though the physician is a resident of or subject to service in the county in which the trial is had. The cost of the deposition filed in court and of copies of the deposition for each party shall be paid for by the bureau of workers’ compensation from the surplus fund and the costs thereof charged against the unsuccessful party if the сlaimant’s right to participate or continue to participate is finally sustained or established in the appeal.”
In construing a statutе, a court’s paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.
State v. S.R.
(1992),
The express language of R.C. 4123.519(C) clearly provides that the deposition costs shall be paid from the surplus fund, whether or not the claimant suсcessfully establishes the right to participate. The statute’s language is mandatory.
Akers v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc.
(1987),
*157
This section encourages the presentation of medical testimony by deposition instead of in-court testimony.
Id.
at 80, 31 OBR at 192,
Neither Perry nor Akers address the costs of videotaping; rather, they deal only with stenographic and duplicating costs. However, the statute does not limit the costs of the depositions to the cost of transcribing only, nor does it state, as aрpellant would have us hold, that appellant, if it is established that the claimant may not participate in the fund, need only pay either the videotape or transcript costs, whichever is more costly. While appellant’s interpretation may be a good policy, in the absence of such a limitation imposed by the Genеral Assembly, we may not so limit the statute. We note that videotape depositions often assist the trier of fact in understanding medical testimony through the use of visual aids and assist the trier of fact to evaluate credibility.
One court has held that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to award the videotape and transcript charges if it determines these are necessary and vital to the litigation.
McGuire v. Mayfield
(Dec. 9, 1991), Allen App. Nоs. 1-90-83 and 1-90-88, unreported,
“Costs. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute or in these rules, costs shall be allowed to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
R.C. 4123.519 is a specific statute which exрressly sets out provisions regarding when costs may be paid and by whom. While the court may have discretion in awarding costs pursuant to R.C. 4123.519(E) (“The cost of any legal proceedings authorized by this section”), with respect to physician’s depositions filed in the court, R.C. 4123.519(C) mandates that the costs of depositions be paid from the surplus fund or taxed to the employer if the claimant’s right to participate is established.
Therefore, in light of the mandatory and nonlimited nature of R.C. 4123.519(C), we hold that the trial court did not err in ordering appellant to pay both the costs of videotaping and transcribing the physician’s depositions.
*158 Accordingly, appellant’s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.