Somewhere in most contested comp files sits an investigator’s report. Surveillance is legal, routine, and — for honest claimants — mostly a non-event. Here is what the camera is actually doing, from the side of the bar that orders it.
What they watch, and when
Sub rosa video: public-place filming, typically clustered around the moments your credibility gets recorded — the deposition, the QME exam, claimed high-disability periods. Social media: the always-on version; public posts get mined and archived. The budget logic is simple: video is cheap, exaggerated claims are expensive, and one contradiction pays for a year of investigators.
What video proves — and what it can’t
Surveillance evidence lives or dies on contradiction, not activity. Conditions fluctuate; treating doctors and QMEs know it; a clip of a functional moment inside your restrictions proves you have functional moments. What shifts cases is video that refutes sworn statements — deposition testimony, exam presentations, disability certifications. The defense routes damaging video to the QME for comment, and inconsistency between your words and the footage becomes the cross-examination at trial.
The playbook for honest claimants
Live your restrictions everywhere, not just at physical therapy — they are medical limits, not performance notes. Describe limitations accurately (ranges and bad-day frequency, never “I can’t ever”). Make social accounts private and stop posting activity content for the life of the claim. And if you’re exceeding your restrictions comfortably, tell your doctor — updating the restrictions is legitimate; contradicting them on camera is how ratings shrink. The rating math only pays the disability the record supports; surveillance exists to test the record.
Estimates for informational use; not legal advice.
Rate your spine right here
Same engine as the tables above — pick your occupation and age, slide the WPI from the report, and carry it into the full calculator when you’re ready.