For decades, long term disability (“LTD”) insurance companies have routinely videotaped disability claimants both at and away from their homes, engaged in daily activities. The LTD insurers use the surreptitious surveillance to rebut the claimants’ claims of physical or mental limitations caused by their disabling condition.
Courts have admitted the surveillance videotape based on the LTD insurers’ argument that if claimants are telling the truth about their medical conditions, then they should have nothing to hide. Conversely, if claimants are being dishonest, then the videotape is evidence exposing the dishonesty.
There are now small high-definition cameras that are relatively inexpensive that make it easy to conceal videotaping. Disability claimants could and should use these types of cameras to take surveillance videotape when the LTD insurers requires them to submit to a so-called "independent medical examination" (“IME”), which everyone knows is anything but independent. Claimants could use the surveillance to rebut the validity of the assertions made by the insurer’s IME physicians.
Since LTD insurers extensively embrace the use of surveillance videotaping of claimants, it would be hypocritical for the insurers to object to claimants using surveillance videotape of IME doctors. If the LTD insurers argue that they need videotape surveillance because there are dishonest people who commit fraud to reap the monetary gain from disability benefits, then the insurers have to concede that there are also dishonest people who commit fraud to reap the monetary benefit from conducting disability IMEs.
A boilerplate clause in virtually every group LTD policy is the right of the insurer to conduct a medical exam of the claimant, the so-called IME. My experience has been that the insurer IME are doctors, usually with subpar credentials, who have had little success in making a living practicing medicine, and therefore need IME income. These doctors know that if they want to continue to have their income supplemented by IMEs, then they need to deliver reports that the insurers will like; otherwise, they will not receive repeat business.
I have been unable to locate any rule, regulation, or statute that prohibits videotaping an LTD IME. In fact, every time I advise an LTD insurer that my client will videotape an IME, to which they always object, the LTD insurer has been unable to identify any law or contractual provision that would prohibit videotaping an LTD IME. Therefore, since courts have routinely accepted surveillance of disability claimants as evidence submitted by LTD insurers, courts should accept surveillance of IME doctors as evidence submitted by LTD claimants.
There is no reason why a court should reject videotape evidence that shows an LTD IME did not tell the truth, or failed to do what the IME report claimed was done. Inconsistencies between an IME report and IME videotape are no different than inconsistencies between what a disability claimant claims and surveillance videotape purportedly reveals.