Opinion ID: 1917936
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Videotaped Surveillance Evidence

Text: In May 2008, the DOL hearing officer concluded that Carnahan's physical condition had improved, and, as a result, that Carnahan had at least a full-time light duty work capacity and a significant earning capacity. The DOL hearing officer then reduced Carnahan's benefits to the diminished earning capacity rate. Carnahan appealed that decision to the CAB. During the CAB's September 2008 hearing, the carrier introduced video surveillance evidence to demonstrate that Carnahan was capable of more physical activity than he had previously reported to his medical providers, the DOL, and the CAB. The video showed two images: (1) on the day of his May 2008 DOL hearing, Carnahan walking normally in his yard before later limping into the DOL; and (2) Carnahan setting up a backyard pool in July 2008. In its October 2008 decision, the CAB found that the video clearly demonstrates that the claimant can do much more than he has testified that he is able to do. Furthermore, based upon the weight of all of the evidence, the CAB determined that Carnahan's pain complaints were likely exaggerated, and that he was self-limiting and capable of at least full-time sedentary work. Relying upon Appeal of Staniels, 142 N.H. 794, 709 A.2d 1325 (1998), Carnahan argues that the CAB erroneously relied upon the video evidence because it did not relate back to his condition on the date of his May 2008 hearing. We disagree. In Staniels, an employer sought termination of a claimant's temporary total disability benefits on the grounds that the claimant was no longer totally disabled and failed to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation. Id. at 795, 709 A.2d 1325. In 1994, a DOL hearing officer reduced the claimant's benefits and terminated his vocational rehabilitation, finding that the claimant was not totally disabled and lacked motivation to improve. Id. Both parties appealed this decision to the CAB. Id. During the CAB's 1996 de novo hearing, the claimant introduced evidence of his 1995 back surgery to establish his currently disabled condition. Id. at 796, 709 A.2d 1325. The CAB considered this evidence only as it related to the claimant's condition in 1994, when the DOL hearing officer first considered the matter. Id. The claimant appealed. Id. We held that the CAB properly limited its consideration of this evidence as relevant only to the issue of the claimant's condition in 1994, when the DOL hearing officer decided the same issue. See id. (stating that DOL hearing officer's decision is an adjudication as to the condition of the injured [employee] at the time it was entered and is not a judgment as to the claimant's future condition (quotations omitted)). We further held that any change in the claimant's condition as a result of the 1995 surgery could only constitute grounds for a new petition to the DOL. Id. at 797, 709 A.2d 1325. Here, the issue decided by the DOL hearing officer in May 2008 was Carnahan's physical capacity in May 2008. In its October 2008 decision, the CAB properly considered the video as evidence of Carnahan's physical capacity as of May 2008 and determined that the claimant had been less than forthcoming in his testimony regarding his actual physical abilities. See Woodmansee, 150 N.H. at 68, 834 A.2d 310 (finding that [i]t is the board's province, not ours, to weigh the evidence in the first instance (quotation omitted)). There is nothing in the CAB's October 2008 decision that suggests that it used the video evidence to determine Carnahan's physical condition as of October 2008. On the contrary, a fair reading of this decision shows that the CAB considered the video only as evidence of Carnahan's physical condition in May 2008, as permitted under our reasoning in Staniels, 142 N.H. at 796-97, 709 A.2d 1325. Affirmed.