We’ve said it a million times, the most important thing is to be honest about your injury, condition, restriction(s), to be yourself at all times, to be aware that you will likely be under some form of surveillance at some stage during the life of your claim (definitely if you proceed with a common law damages claim) and that you should never forget that you also need to give your lawyer(s) and barristers the very best opportunity to secure the best outcome for you!
It is not the first time that we hear of injured workers’ cases being thrown out by Judges based on malingering or exaggeration, and evidenced by substantial video surveillance.
Supreme court rejects compensation claim based on surveillance
A decision to reject a Sunshine man’s claim for compensation following a workplace injury six years ago has been upheld in the Supreme Court.
Josip Kalinic’s application for pain and loss of earnings compensation was dismissed in the County Court in September last year after surveillance footage tendered as evidence showed him walking four kilometres to Sunshine railway station on two occasions without any apparent discomfort.
Mr Kalinic, 52, told the court he could only walk for up to 30 minutes and was unable to stand without pain after being injured while working as a fitter and turner in August 2007, when a large steel plate fell onto his left lower leg, lacerating and crushing soft tissue.
He returned to work on modified duties after surgery, but his employment was terminated on November 17, 2008.
Surveillance video showed Mr Kalinic walking “relatively extended distances”, in stark contrast to his claims that he was in constant pain and lived a very restricted lifestyle, which he compared to “like house arrest”.
In one video, Mr Kalinic was shown walking his dog for nearly an hour at a brisk pace on June 29, 2011.
On two other occasions, on May 12, 2012 and May 16, 2012, he walked four kilometres from his Sunshine home to the train station, even though he had a driver’s licence.
Mr Kalinic also told his doctor he could only stand in one position no longer than five minutes, but he was filmed standing in one position on a train into the city for 25 minutes.
“In my view, the level of activity that the appellant displayed on May 16, 2012 and on the other surveillance film was inconsistent with the picture painted,” Justice Ross Robson said last week.