Jo*Mar . . . I used to hire investigators. Sometimes an employer (of an injured worker) would "order" three days of surveillance. I almost always recommended against any surveillance until some background checks were done. Amazing how much more I could get with three days if I asked for licensing, real estate, and court checks . . . things like ski boats and race cars are hard to find in three days unless you have a clue leading you there, and then you can be more specific in your investigation. And you might not know that there was a messy divorce necessitating new child care issues for someone reluctant to return to work.
I used to abhor it when a client ordered surveillance. It often carried a dislike of the particular employee built into it. And believe it or not the opposite occurred too . . . employers who would not authorize surveillance on the deemed "good employee" that I had mounting evidence was less hurt than they were playing. It is an grossly overused tool in most cases. Just like the "Independent Medical Evaluation."
As much as I detested using surveillance, in my career I got film of claimants doing what they claimed was impossible:
- I had one man on film looking over his left shoulder driving an old tractor that lacked power steering, something that should have been impossible for man who could not "turn his head or look up or down" or push or pull anything over 5#s.
- I had another man on film working under the hood of his car after going to the bar, the bowling alley, and for a ride on his friend's motorcycle . . . and he said he couldn't walk or stand for more than a minute or two.
- I got film of another claimant on a 24ft extension ladder who claimed he couldn't do sedentary desk work which the client offered him.
- I obtained film of a claimant preparing for his next boxing match. Blew his claim for pain and suffering on a phony slip and fall claim to pieces.
- Didn't even need film after the PI found out a slip and fall claimant had been charged with raping a woman in the back seat of her compact car just days after his "debilitating fall on melted snow on the floor" of a fast food chain location we insured.
On the other hand, I smugly presented one client film of their employee shopping with the kids for back-to-school clothes. When they objected, believing she was violating her restrictions, I suggested that we could ask the doctor if he felt she should not take the kids out shopping because of her work injury . . . to which they were willing to let it drop.
I always advised my clients not to expect their injured employees to stop living . . . as that was not in their best interest. A few times I actually remarked that at least they (the employer) were seeing evidence that their injured employee's conditions were improving for all the medical and rehabilitation expenses they were incurring!
Actually, the most common reasons for an employer believing a claim is worthy of a couple thousand in surveillance is an injury reported in proximity to disciplinary action, lay-off notice, demotion, schedule changes which disrupt child care, and tips from fellow employees alleging either no injury or that they have heard or seen the claimant doing work while off with an injury.
Investigators working for the bad guys
Why not approach the scum and tell him politely that he's been "made"? hehe 
)
Linear Mode
