Disability insurance companies may look to more than just medical records and reports when determining whether a claimant qualifies for disability insurance benefits. Insurers have long used private investigators to perform surveillance of claimants in order to obtain additional information regarding the claimant’s restrictions and limitations. Oftentimes, the private investigators are asked to document their observations with video to provide tangible evidence of the claimant’s daily activities and abilities. Depending on the information gathered, reports from the investigators’ surveillance and the associated video evidence can lead to a denial of disability benefits. Generally, when courts review video evidence they look at whether the observations in the surveillance video are consistent with the claimant’s reported restrictions and limitations.
A common strategy for disability insurers is to schedule surveillance at a time when the claimant has a scheduled appointment with their doctor or a previously scheduled medical examination. This provides the private investigators with a known opportunity to observe the claimant outside of their home. Inevitably, this allows the surveillance team to observe the claimant driving or riding in a vehicle. In Mote v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 502 F.3d 601 (7th Cir.2007), Aetna’s decision to deny the plaintiff’s disability benefits was upheld by the court. Aetna based their decision in part on video surveillance showing the plaintiff running errands, driving to medical appointments, and loading groceries into her car. This evidence was used to establish that the plaintiff could work in “any occupation.” However, video surveillance in Gessling v. Grp. Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 693 F. Supp. 2d 856, 864 (S.D. Ind. 2010) only showed that the claimant was capable of driving a little longer than the fifteen minutes he reported to a Hartford Life representative. The court in Gessling found that this video evidence “says nothing useful about (the claimant’s) ability to work in his own occupation.”
Similarly, the Northern District of California found that surveillance evidence depicting a plaintiff “walking, driving and doing errands … for a couple of hours … does not mean that [that p]laintiff is able to work an eight-hour a day job.” Thivierge v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2006 WL 823751, at *11 (N.D.Cal. March 28, 2006). The Eastern District of California reached the same conclusion in a case where Hartford procured surveillance video of the plaintiff driving to the store, visiting a friend, carrying a small bag, and sitting through an interview while taking numerous breaks. Leick v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 2008 WL 1882850 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2008). The court determined that the plaintiff’s documented activity on a “good day” did not contradict that the plaintiff was unable to perform a full-time sedentary job. Id. See also Hunter v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 437 F. App’x 372, 378-79 (6th Cir. 2011) (surveillance of a plaintiff driving to her functional capacity evaluation, as well as other activities of daily living, did not indicate that Hunter can perform all the physical duties of her former occupation).