Many people who sustain compensable injuries recover uneventfully and return to their pre-injury lives. Unfortunately for insurers, there are claimants whose recovery is protracted; they report ongoing pain and incapacity which appears disproportionate to the stated cause, medical evidence and, on occasion, surveillance evidence.

Typically, when recovery is protracted, the claimant will state they have “good and bad days” to address instances where their activities appear inconsistent with their alleged incapacitation.

The recent case of Wishart v Brambles Limited addresses this very matter and highlights the importance of surveillance to demonstrate consistent activities over consecutive days to defeat the usual "good days and bad days" explanation for observed activities on an individual day.

*** Read the original article here ***