My apologies for the long post, but as we approach spring and begin to spend more time outside, it's important to consider who may be watching.
In theory, surveillance is a good practice, whether by insurance companies or the Social Security Administration. If honestly undertaken and evenly reviewed, this can help prevent the fraud that burdens the benefit systems, raises costs for all, and gives individuals collecting disability 'a bad name.' Unfortunately, surveillance is often conducted in a 'gotcha' style, over brief periods of time, and without an understanding of the condition at issue. For MS patients, two condition factors are especially relevant in interpreting surveillance: (1) the daily ebb and flow of the condition, and (2) an understanding that some activity may be possible today, but at the cost of a recovery day tomorrow.
Claimants often ask whether surveillance will be conducted during their disability claims and/or after they have been approved. The answers differ depending on the type of claim.
Historically, Social Security has conducted a minimal amount of surveillance, and much of the surveillance conducted was in response to known issues (such as a specific doctor generating large volumes of fraudulent cases, or where the SSA received tips of potential fraud). Recently, however, there has been an increase in surveillance activity by the SSA, as well as discussion by congress and the executive branch about expanding the surveillance programs.
In long term disability claims, surveillance has long been a tool used by the insurers to verify and/or attack claims.
Surveillance can take various forms, but two are especially relevant for our purposes. First, there is traditional surveillance in the form of an unknown and occupied vehicle being parked near your home for an extended period of time. Should you see such a vehicle, I recommend the claimant not directly confront the occupant. Calling the police is an option, as a legitimate surveillance company will often notify the local authorities in advance. Alternatively, having a close friend approach the vehicle in a polite way to discuss the purpose of the visit is reasonable. Considering the volatility of these conversations - possibly occurring while on camera - I never recommend a claimant address the potential issue themselves.
More problematic is the second form of surveillance, social media surveillance. In long term disability claim files, we regularly see hundreds of pages of Facebook posts. We also see unsupported conclusions reached by adjusters based upon benign social media posts. An image of a claimant on a golf course with friends results in a conclusion that they could walk and play a full 18 holes, or a picture of a person at a tailgate results in a conclusion that they could participate in a social gathering for an extended duration. The fact that the first claimant didn't golf, but rested in the clubhouse while their friends were on the course, and that the second claimant was sitting during most of the tailgate and didn't go to the game, were lost in these analyses.
Please be aware of your social media postings, and how they can be interpreted. Furthermore, evaluate the benefits and risks of social media use, and assess whether any posting at all is worthwhile.
Surveillance shouldn't cause you to stop living, as you do not have to be a vegetable to be approved for disability. It should, however, cause you to assess how your activities may be interpreted and be more aware of your surroundings.
Good luck and happy springtime!
In theory, surveillance is a good practice, whether by insurance companies or the Social Security Administration. If honestly undertaken and evenly reviewed, this can help prevent the fraud that burdens the benefit systems, raises costs for all, and gives individuals collecting disability 'a bad name.' Unfortunately, surveillance is often conducted in a 'gotcha' style, over brief periods of time, and without an understanding of the condition at issue. For MS patients, two condition factors are especially relevant in interpreting surveillance: (1) the daily ebb and flow of the condition, and (2) an understanding that some activity may be possible today, but at the cost of a recovery day tomorrow.
Claimants often ask whether surveillance will be conducted during their disability claims and/or after they have been approved. The answers differ depending on the type of claim.
Historically, Social Security has conducted a minimal amount of surveillance, and much of the surveillance conducted was in response to known issues (such as a specific doctor generating large volumes of fraudulent cases, or where the SSA received tips of potential fraud). Recently, however, there has been an increase in surveillance activity by the SSA, as well as discussion by congress and the executive branch about expanding the surveillance programs.
In long term disability claims, surveillance has long been a tool used by the insurers to verify and/or attack claims.
Surveillance can take various forms, but two are especially relevant for our purposes. First, there is traditional surveillance in the form of an unknown and occupied vehicle being parked near your home for an extended period of time. Should you see such a vehicle, I recommend the claimant not directly confront the occupant. Calling the police is an option, as a legitimate surveillance company will often notify the local authorities in advance. Alternatively, having a close friend approach the vehicle in a polite way to discuss the purpose of the visit is reasonable. Considering the volatility of these conversations - possibly occurring while on camera - I never recommend a claimant address the potential issue themselves.
More problematic is the second form of surveillance, social media surveillance. In long term disability claim files, we regularly see hundreds of pages of Facebook posts. We also see unsupported conclusions reached by adjusters based upon benign social media posts. An image of a claimant on a golf course with friends results in a conclusion that they could walk and play a full 18 holes, or a picture of a person at a tailgate results in a conclusion that they could participate in a social gathering for an extended duration. The fact that the first claimant didn't golf, but rested in the clubhouse while their friends were on the course, and that the second claimant was sitting during most of the tailgate and didn't go to the game, were lost in these analyses.
Please be aware of your social media postings, and how they can be interpreted. Furthermore, evaluate the benefits and risks of social media use, and assess whether any posting at all is worthwhile.
Surveillance shouldn't cause you to stop living, as you do not have to be a vegetable to be approved for disability. It should, however, cause you to assess how your activities may be interpreted and be more aware of your surroundings.
Good luck and happy springtime!
Comment