Surveillance Video Restrictions Proposed For Injured Worker Protection. What About Missouri and Kansas?

If you are a claimant in a workers compensation case, including Kansas City and outlying areas in Missouri and Kansas, you may at some time feel like you are being watched, and with good reason.  Insurance companies do conduct surveillance, not only where they think the claimant is committing fraud but sometimes just to try to get evidence to reduce the amount of compensation a claimant might receive. Moreover, in some jurisdictions video evidence is not discoverable, at least until after the claimant's deposition is taken, by which time the unknowing claimant may have made statements contradicting the evidence in the video.

In Colorado, however, the legislature is considering a bill that would prohibit insurers and employers from conducting video surveillance unless they have a reasonable belief that the employee has committed fraud or made a material misstatement regarding the claim.  The measure, which last week was passed by the House Judiciary Committee, now goes to the Colorado House Appropriations Committee.  A similar bill is pending in the Colorado Senate. The bill would also allow claimants to request a hearing on an expedited basis to find out why they are being investigated, and would require the individuals conducting the surveillance to respond fully to questions. There would also be civil penalties of $1000 a day for violations of the law. 

This is a good attempt to keep insurance companies from harassing injured workers by randomly conducting surveillance and having an investigator camped out in front of a claimant's home.  It would restrict the ability of insurance companies to conduct surveillance to only those cases where there is some evidence of fraud or misconduct.  Of course, it is difficult to predict what will be sufficient to establish a "reasonable belief," but hopefully if the law is enacted the courts will require a showing of more than just a "hunch" or suspicion by the claims adjuster or employer or insurance company attorney.  They should require the adjuster or employer insurance company lawyer to first present some clear evidence of some wrongdoing.

Although the current climate in the legislatures in Missouri and Kansas does not appear conducive to the type of employee favorable surveillance law currently being proposed in Colorado, the restrictions make sense and could start a trend toward needed state law protection of the injured worker.