Exercise or Evidence? The Grey Zone of Workers’ Comp Surveillance
- corey7416
- May 24
- 2 min read
Several years ago, I was assigned to a routine workers’ compensation surveillance case. The claimant alleged bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome—a serious condition that can severely impact grip strength, dexterity, and motor function. According to the medical file, they were under strict restrictions: no repetitive hand motions, no lifting, and absolutely no use of vibrating tools.
So imagine my surprise when I captured hour after hour of footage showing them kayaking across open water, swimming freely, and lifting heavy kayaks onto the roof of a vehicle like it was part of a daily workout. We're not talking about a leisurely paddle in a calm lake either—this was active, sustained, full-body exertion. At one point, it looked like a scene from a CrossFit video, complete with overhead lifts and coordinated movements that require strength, balance, and full use of both arms and hands.

By the letter of the medical documentation, it was a textbook exceedance of restrictions. Clear footage. Consistent activity. Multiple days. We thought we had a slam dunk.
But when the case went to hearing, the judge ruled in favor of the claimant.
Their reasoning? The judge determined the footage did not definitively disprove the injury, and that engaging in physical activity—no matter how intense—could still be viewed as a form of rehabilitation. In their words, the claimant was “entitled to rehabilitate through physical movement.”
Let that sink in: lifting 40-lb kayaks and paddling through open water was framed as “light rehab” for a nerve impingement disorder that supposedly made even basic hand movements painful.
Now, I’ve worked on hundreds of cases like this. I’ve also heard just as many from colleagues in SIU departments, claims teams, and risk management. And it raises a very real question—one I think more people in the insurance and legal world need to grapple with:
Where is the line between protecting the injured... and enabling the dishonest?
Surveillance isn’t about “catching” people. It’s about gathering facts, context, and patterns of behavior to support a fair, accurate claim outcome. But even with solid evidence, success isn’t guaranteed. That’s why knowing how to structure a case—legally, ethically, and strategically—matters just as much as what you capture on camera.
At Porter Investigative Resources, we don’t just provide surveillance. We bring experience from both the investigative and insurance sides of the aisle. That means we know how to build a file that makes sense in the real world—not just on paper.
If you’ve dealt with situations like this—or you’re wondering if a current claim might require a second look—we’re here to talk through it. Fraud is complex. Accountability doesn’t have to be.
Comments