LOIS Uses Security Footage to Prove Claimant’s Deception, Obtains Fraud Finding

LOIS Senior Associate Matthew Schrieks and Paralegal Kayla Lisa recently secured a WCL Section 114-a violation and disallowance of claim pursuant to security video evidence secured of the underlying accident. The Claimant alleged injuries to his neck, back, bilateral knees, and left ankle as a result of being struck by a car while working as a valet driver. With the help of security video evidence obtained from the employer, Schrieks was successful in arguing that the Claimant’s description of the accident was categorically refuted by the video evidence and the alleged injuries could not have occurred as a result of the “accident.” In a Reserved Decision, the Law Judge detailed the fraudulent and exaggerated testimony offered by the Claimant. Moreover, he noted that the video evidence undercut every argument made by the Claimant. Specifically, he noted that the video demonstrated that the car was traveling at a speed of less than 1 or 2 mph and was only two feet away from the Claimant. This was contrary to the Claimant’s testimony which noted that the vehicle was seven feet away from him and traveling at a speed of 5 to 10 mph. Additionally, the Law Judge noted that in his testimony, the Claimant noted that the injury caused him to stumble and reach for a parking cone; however, the video refuted this testimony. The Law Judge found compelling that the Claimant’s physicians, although provided a copy of the video evidence, failed to offer an addendum to any of their reports after reviewing the video evidence. Moreover, he found the Claimant’s misrepresentation regarding the accident was particularly egregious because the existence of the security video was disclosed prior to the Claimant’s testimony, yet the Claimant still misrepresented and exaggerated the alleged accident. Given the overwhelming evidence, the Law Judge found that the only reason for the misrepresentations in this case was to bolster the case for monetary awards and, as such, issued the mandatory and discretionary penalties against the Claimant.