Another Federal Judge has determined that the decision to terminate a long term disability claim was improper, where Prudential sought to rely heavily upon the results of surveillance it had obtained of the claimant.
The Court decided that the surveillance which Prudential relied upon, and which showed the claimant walking, driving, and manipulating bags, grocery carts and her door handle, were not sufficient evidence to dispute the claim. The Judge noted that the surveillance showed the claimant to be very limited in her activities, with stiff and slow movements, which served to support her own statements of her limitations.
Prudential argued that its reliance upon an IME, and medical reviews by third party physicians, coupled with the surveillance, satisfied its burden to show substantial evidence supported its decision. The Court disagreed, noting that the determination needed to be consistent with the quantity and quality of the medical evidence.
Davis v. Prudential Ins. Co.