Source: https://loisllc.com/workers-compensation/trial-tips-effective-use-of-surveillance-video/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:12:36+00:00

Document:
Using surveillance video at trial in New York, New Jersey, and Longshore/DBA workers’ compensation claims.
New York: Special surveillance video rules.
Under the New York Workers' Compensation Law, making false statements to obtain workers' compensation benefits is illegal and will result in the claim being thrown out (WCL § 114(a)) and the claimant referred for prosecution. The fraud defense will be based on two types of statements made by the claimant: (1) statements made inside a court room and (2) statements made to doctors in examining rooms.
In a recent case, a New York Appellate Court affirmed a disqualification from benefits where video surveillance of the claimant showed him going to and leaving a medical examiner's office with a leg brace and a cane AND A WALKER. (Wait a second – – -a cane AND a walker? How could he manage that with only two hands?!?) While that portion of video showed a severely disabled victim, in later scenes the claimant was able to move his legs freely. The video revealed that he was not not using a brace, cane or walker, and showed that he actually had no impairment in his daily activities.
The Board ruled that the claimant had violated WCL § 114(a) and was disqualified from workers' compensation benefits. The appellate panel, on review, affirmed that disqualification. (Case: Retz v. Surpass Chem. Co.,).
Practical note: New York has specific submission requirements for video – it must be in either ".avi" or ".wmv" and submitted to the WCB on a DVD-ROM. In my experience, the submission will be noted as a "NS-OBJECT" in e-case ("Non-scannable object"). The video must be viewable in "Windows Media Player" or the WCB will reject the video.
Video in New Jersey: Getting the video into evidence.
Video surveillance is often relied upon by the defense in New Jersey to either challenge credibility or to demonstrate that a claimant is not as disabled as he appears from his own testimony or his doctor’s examination. Video does not have to be disclosed during the normal discovery process, even though adversary counsel may demand copies of videotape. Under the current rules, video does not have to be revealed unless the respondent intends on using the video and only after the petitioner testifies.
One exception to this is where the respondent has shown the video to an examining or treating physician. If the video has been shown to an attending or examining doctor prior to the petitioner's testimony, then it is discoverable by the petitioner prior to his testimony.
Practical Tip: Ever since the decision of Gross v. Neptune the introduction of videotape evidence in contested workers’ compensation trials in New Jersey is limited by the disclosures on the Pre-Trial Memorandum. In Gross, the respondent did not disclose surveillance video on the Pre-Trial memorandum. During the trial (after the claimant testified), the respondent obtained videotape surveillance of the petitioner. The video evidence was not admissible due to the failure of the respondent to provide proper notice that the video was to be used.
Best practices: Whether or not we have surveillance, we always put (on every "green sheet" Pre-Trial memorandum) that the "respondent reserves the right to obtain video surveillance of the claimant after the trial has started as per Gross v. Neptune.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that surveillance evidence must be disclosed if it is to be used at trial. FRCP 26(b)(1). However, video used as "impeachment evidence" – to challenge the credibility of the claimant – is not subject to discovery. So, if you have great video on the claimant, but you only intend to use the video during cross-examination (and not send it to your evaluating doctor, for example), is it discoverable?
The Federal Rules (FRCP 26(a)(3)) clearly excludes from pretrial discovery material which will be used "solely for impeachment purposes;" the obvious rationale for excluding impeachment material from discovery is that their disclosure would substantially impair their impeachment value. In Fee v. Calcasieu Paper Co., videos of a claimant were obtained by elaborate detective work which included inducing the disabled man to dig, to conceal cameras in fox holes and to surveil on his activities. That video was deemed admissible by the judge. However, in a recent case arising under the Jones Act, the Fifth Circuit has held that a surveillance videotape of an injured worker's daily activities constituted substantive evidence subject to disclosure pursuant to a discovery request. The trial court's admission of the tape solely for impeachment purposes, when the evidence was in part substantive, constituted reversible error. Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp.
The decision whether to admit surveillance films and the weight to be accorded such evidence are matters within the discretion of the judge.

References: § 114
 § 114
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.