When KBR, FLUOR, Dyncorp, AECOM, Janus, Sallyport, MEP and etc. employees file for workers’ compensation benefits under the Defense Base Act, sometimes Insurance Carriers will submit their claims to an outside vendor for surveillance.
Let me be clear here, not every Claimant will end up under surveillance and there are quite few reasons as to why not.
- Firstly, there must be some type of the red flag on the claim; for example, the Carrier may have submitted a claim for social media and background search and results returned show Claimant posted pictures doing weight lifting in the gym when he claims he is temporarily or totally disabled due to his back injury.
- Secondly, Carriers do not have investigators sitting around in the office and waiting for Adjusters to fly them out to Kosovo, Uganda, Macedonia, Bosnia, Thailand and etc. to do surveillance on someone and maybe collect some sort of incriminating material. There are potential legal issues for Carrier since the majority of the Claimants live overseas and for that reason they must assign surveillance to outside vendors that have field agents present locally.
- Thirdly, there is an issue on financial side: vendors do not work for free, surveillance is expensive and no Carrier will be willing to get into the something that will cost more than claim in whole.
All of above said, will does happen. Due to a recent influx of Defense Base Act claims coming in from the Balkans and East African region, it is becoming almost a standard. It is important to note that field agents conducting surveillance are well-trained and use latest technology to complete assignments. So, what are they looking for? There is not one answer to that question, it all depends of the claim in question and what Claimant said during the interview or deposition or what was revealed during the social media and background search. Carrier will not submit request for surveillance immediately, something must have happened in the claim process that raised a red flag and Carrier believes surveillance will help to clear out any issues there may be.
For example, let’s say the Claimant is from somewhere in the Balkan region and claims PTSD. During the deposition he says he is avoiding friends and family and not leaving the house for months. If Carrier orders social media search and that search shows the Claimant having a great time with family friends with a beer in one hand and microphone in another two days earlier, that may be grounds for the next step in investigation process, which is surveillance.
It is understandable that surveillance may have a negative health effect on the Claimant. In the example above, let’s say Claimant suffers from legitimate PTSD disorder and is placed under surveillance. What effect will surveillance have on Claimant who may notice someone is following him for hours? It is not going to improve his PTSD condition for sure. On the other side, Carriers want to confirm the claim is legitimate and surveillance may be one of the tools Carriers will use to piece evidence together.
In conclusion, surveillance is one of the many tools Carriers have available in their arsenal to investigate the legitimacy of claims. It is not illegal unless Claimants live in countries where surveillance is restricted and may result in violation of domestic laws.
