Is the Big HIT the Only Successful Surveillance ?!?!?!

Many of our potential client's ask, " In what percentage of cases do you find the
claimant working?", followed quickly by the statement, "There is not much use for
surveillance if we can not show the claimant working".  I beg to differ with this
point of view, as many of our best won cases did not find the claimant working
but did find him more than capable of working.

Granted the BIG HIT is the easiest of cases to handle and among the cheapest. 
However, this self-imposed limitation to the use of surveillance sets many claims
handlers up to having a greater percentage of serious cases than their more
aggressive counterparts, especially when working with Worker's Compensation, but
also with other bodily injury cases.  In a W.C. case the claimant is being paid
not to work or in essence to remain disabled, not an easy case to win if your
main defense approach is relying on the claimant returning to work.  Surveillance
should be your Main Approach to Claim Defense, Not the Only but Definitely the
Primary.  THE BIG HIT does happen and when we do find the claimant working,
generally speaking, these claims are put to a quick end.

But how do you deal with the claimant that is making as much or more on his comp.
benefits than when he was working?  He has no motivation to return to work so you
will be paying him for a long time.  What about the personal injury case?  Many
bodily injury cases do not even raise the question of their inability to work,
but address solely the loss of the quality of life and recreational capabilities. 
Surveillance agencies should be the primary defense resource in these in cases
also.  Effective surveillance is used to rebut point for point the claimant's
allegations of disability so as to manipulate him and his attorney into giving
up on his case and those dreams of large quick settlements.  The vast majority
of the cases that are won are as a result of this approach to using surveillance
to control claims.  This method of surveillance usage is more expensive than the
annual or twice a year spot check of the claimant to confirm that he his
remaining unemployed, until you consider your payments to the individual or the
rising settlement demands as the case lingers.  Statistically, cases that are
allowed to proceed on for several years and are not aggressively adjusted cost
many thousands of dollars more to settle and have a significantly better chance
of being accepted as a permanent total.  Of course you can also add in the
expenses of prolonged rehab involvement or your own defense counsel to
periodically review the status of the file in the event something does happen. 
Juries also appear to be swayed in favor of the claimant, the longer the claimant
has allegedly been suffering.

The point of aggressive claims handling is to control the claim.  The point of
surveillance is provide the claims handler the information and evidence to
control the claim.  It does not take a particularly skilled adjuster to control
a case where the surveillance team has found the claimant working.  However a
skilled adjuster and a competent surveillance team can control most any claim. 
They do not have to have "THE BIG HIT" to effectively utilize surveillance
evidence.  Many times surveillance alone can close a case in the hands of a
skilled adjuster, claims manager or defense attorney.  The style of case has no
bearing in the degree of success, only the skill of the surveillance team and the
adjuster.  Generally speaking, claimant's attorneys do not want to take claims
to trial as it is not profitable for them.  These attorneys deal in volume,
especially those who may be seen advertising on television.

Most personal injury attorneys make their money on volume like everyone else. 
When a plaintiff's attorney is consistently forced to increase his time allotment
and expenses to a case's handling, he becomes less interested in pursuing the
case.  This occurs when handling the case crosses the threshold where the time
allocated to a case exceeds that which he readily expects to recover.  The
adjuster aggressively controlling the claim point for point with information from
surveillance can force the plaintiff's attorney into this situation.

THE BIG HIT is a very fortunate occurrence in claims handling, one which I hope
happens on every case, but the reality is that it does not happen enough to be
relied on as an effective method to control all claims.  However, most
surveillances will reveal information on the day to day capabilities of claimants
to allow you, the adjuster or attorney, to control or minimize the claim. 
Remember, without surveillance there is a tremendous information void which
usually makes the difference in effective claims handling.

             Is "THE BIG HIT" the only effective surveillance?

                              !!!!  NO  !!!!