I believe that the interpreter should have translated the conversation between the applicant and his attorney into English if it was on the record. The deposing attorney would have immediately known that the applicant's attorney was not informing his client of the correct question, I have done this in many occasions since the defense attorney wanted to know what was being said on the record, no matter the language.

Hi Marjory!, I am looking for exercises since I have a deposition tomorrow and I have come upon this video!! Love your hear your thoughts of my suggestion for what to do. I make it a habit to interpret all that is said, either in court, depositions or medical. So during that exchange with "Mike" I would be interpreting what he said for all to hear since in your example it was not a quiet, private comment even excluding me. So all that is said in English, I interpret to my "Francisco" even if not addressed to him. Therefore, what Mike said to Francisco would be public record. Make sense? If Mike does not want it to be interpreted, he would have to specifically clarify it to me before hand, WHICH PUTS MY ON ALERT FOR a private exchange OR something like your example to happen. Would that work?

Unfortunately, this speaker is incorrect. It is the interpreter's duty to act a bridge between his clients. Worker's Comp not only counts for injurt, but also sickness or family emergency. This misunderstanding could be disastrous for the client legally and the interpreter would've been held at fault for not doing his job and maybe even face lega reprocussions due to the nature of the interpretation. It is one thing to paraphrase amidst interpretation, but saying Worker's Comp is simply you getting hurt on the job is not the same. It is irresponsible for the interpreter not to chime in and ensure the client understands the question fully.