- Continuing entitlement
- Evidence (surveillance)
The worker was not entitled to ongoing LOE benefits.
The Vice-Chair found surveillance evidence of the worker to be highly probative with respect to whether the worker's reporting and presentation of her functional abilities was consistent with her demonstrated functional abilities when she was unaware of being observed. The surveillance was conducted over eight days, which is a relatively lengthy period of surveillance and constitutes more than just a snapshot of the worker's condition.Further, the surveillance was conducted during a period which was contemporaneous with the employer's ongoing offer of modified work, and which was proximate to the medical reports to which it is compared.The employer's representative put the surveillance evidence to the worker showing her performing activities incompatible with her stated restrictions, but the responses of the worker did not adequately explain the inconsistencies put to her between her reported functional abilities and her abilities as shown on the surveillance evidence.