Archive | Surveillance

RSS feed for this section

Former PM Julia Gillard house keeper workcover claim reinstated

You may remember the case of former PM Julia Gillard’s house keeper’s workcover claim for an injury she sustained to her back while straining to fit a sheet on Julia Gillard’s king-size mattress in 2012. The house keeper had initially some issues with her claim, also re-injured herself and now it turns out that she was accused of “fraud” by means of surveillance. However recently the AAT overturned the decision of Comcare to cease her claim for compensation. The article gives some worthy tips re surveillance.

Continue Reading…


Facebook can ruin your workcover claim and show you can work

If you are an injured worker with a (potential) serious injury application and/or a common law damages claim with a Facebook account, you really need to read this article. No matter what privacy settings you use on Facebook, you must assume that everything you post will be viewed by the workcover insurer defense lawyers. And, what’s worse, your Facebooking can also be used to demonstrate your ability to undertake an office, or computer based job!

Continue Reading…

spying-on-injured-workers1 surveillance-injured-workers-rights facebook-peeking-workcover stressed-police-hunted-like-crminals-art xmas-surveillance-workcover facebook-surveillance-workerscomp

Workcover surveillance – running online searches is standard practice

WorkCover insurances and their hired fraud or private investigators are spying on injured workers’ social media in increasing numbers. Intensive surveillance of Facebook postings, tweets, YouTube videos, photo sharing sites etc. are all being used in an attempt to untangle “a web of lies” and discredit any injured worker. In fact it is now standard practice for them to run computer searches and investigations to obtain information about your personal life.

Continue Reading…

creepy-surveillance ime-under-surveillance

surveillance of workcover defense IME should be allowed

In wokcover cases, the defense counsel (insurer and their lawyers) has been allowed , for years, to use covert video surveillance to challenge the injured worker’s testimony in court regarding the extent and severity of his/her injuries.  Allowing the injured worker to use the same surveillance means to challenge the testimony of a defendant’s chosen doctor (IME) on the same issue by exposing the thoroughness (or often lack thereof) of the IME’s examination of the injured worker should, in our opinion, also be routinely accepted.

Continue Reading…