According to this law.com article, 25% of workers compensation surveillance video ends up supporting the plaintiff. And that’s out of 10-15 percent of cases that are videotaped.

In the cited case, the defendant videotaped the plaintiff, who really was injured. The defense declined to use the tape but the plaintiff attorney impeached the defense witness with it. Ouch! Does it make sense to observe first, then videotape, if the evidence supports the defense? I guess insurance companies don’t want to pay for the extra work. They’d probably rather roll the dice and get dinged at trial…