Workers' Compensation Video and the Highlight Reel
An insurance defense firm hires a Missouri private investigator to surveil a workers' compensation claimant who says a back injury prevents lifting more than 10 pounds. Over three days, the investigator records 47 minutes of video showing the claimant loading 2x4 lumber into a truck. The footage is on a personal phone and a backup camera. An assistant copies the files to a laptop, renames them, and deletes 'boring' segments to save space. The client asks for a 90-second highlight clip with a timestamp overlay and a written report stating the claimant 'committed fraud.' The claimant's face is partly obscured by a cap, and the investigator is not sure of identity on day three.
1. What chain-of-custody steps should the investigator take after discovering the assistant's file handling?
Read the worked answer
The investigator should stop using the altered laptop copy and return to the original phone and backup camera files. Preserve the original storage media or export a bit-for-bit copy without altering metadata. If possible, use a write-blocking tool and compute a SHA-256 hash of each original file. Store the originals in a locked evidence locker or secure location with limited access. Create a working copy for review only.
Start a chain-of-custody log that records each transfer: date, time, from whom, to whom, purpose, and signature. Document the assistant's renaming and deletion because it breaks the ideal chain; do not hide it. If the original files still exist, the investigator can explain the error and rely on the originals. If the only copy was altered, disclose that limitation. The report should also note camera date/time settings and any clock drift.
2. How should the investigator handle the requested highlight clip, timestamp overlay, and 'fraud' language?
Read the worked answer
The investigator may create a 90-second derivative clip, but must preserve the full original footage and disclose that the clip is an excerpt. The overlay should be labeled as added in post-production, and any speed change, brightening, or cropping must be documented. Deleting 'boring' segments from the original is improper; the original must remain intact. The clip should include context-date, time, location, duration, and the full sequence of lifting and loading-not just the most dramatic seconds.
The report should describe what was observed: the claimant lifted and carried lumber, the apparent size and number of boards, and the duration. It should not state that the claimant 'committed fraud,' which is a legal conclusion for the adjuster, attorney, or court. The investigator should note the limits of the footage, including that it cannot show pain, medical restrictions, or intent. Factual, measured language protects the evidence and the investigator's credibility.
3. What should the investigator do about the uncertain identification on day three?
Read the worked answer
The investigator should not assert a positive identification on day three without corroboration. Instead, document descriptors: clothing, cap, height, build, gait, vehicle, license plate, and location. Compare the day-three subject with known photographs or prior footage, and look for independent corroboration such as the vehicle registered to the claimant or the claimant's known workplace. If identity remains uncertain, the report should say so and should not blend day-three footage into a confident identification of the claimant.
A separate log entry should explain the basis for any identification and the confidence level. If the client wants to use day three in a hearing, the investigator should be prepared to testify about the limits and should not overstate certainty. Weak identification can undermine otherwise strong footage from days one and two; segregating the uncertain day is more defensible than presenting it as conclusive.