Whether or not to incur the expense of surveillance in a workers' compensation case is a difficult question. Even if you feel it in your adjuster gut that this claimant is faking, catching the fraud on video is another matter. And even if you do get video of the claimant carrying groceries in violation of her 10 pound lifting restriction, often times doctors are still reluctant to remove the restrictions - this phenomenon is worthy of its own post to come later. So the question remains, does surveillance work and is it worth the cost?
I am a believer in the use of surveillance in many situations. But only if done right; otherwise it can be a huge wast of time and money. So, from time to time, I will be posting stories of some successful surveillance, and some not to successful attempts. Maybe we can hone in on a pattern of what works and what doesn't to improve the effectiveness of our surveillance attempts. Here's one to get us started.
Bay Area Woman's Sex Act Reveals Workers' Comp Fraud. Here, a woman with an ankle injury was caught by investigators tossing her crutches in the car, running through the park, and performing oral sex on her boyfriend in the park. Not only were her benefits terminated, she was prosecuted by the state for fraud - sentenced to nine months in jail and ordered to pay more than $79,000 in restitution.
Surveillance - 1; Fraud - 0 . . . but who's keeping score? Ummm, we are.
