The Mystery of the Case of Water that Climbed 7 Steps

Can You Solve The Case?

Part II

The Clues and the Conclusion

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Smith v. Campbell Industries, Inc., No. 2024-CA-0348 (La. Ct. App. 02/11/25).

There was no doubt that the employee lifted the water bottle cases into his car, the court observed, and that he said in his 2020 deposition that he never tried that again. 

However, the court stated, to demonstrate fraud, an employer must establish not merely a misrepresentation but a misrepresentation that was made wilfully in order to obtain benefits.Further, an inadvertent and inconsequential false statement is not sufficient.

There were several clues that worked against a finding that the employee willfully misrepresented his physical abilities to obtain benefits:

• The employee merely lifted the water from his shopping cart to the rear of his car–a brief period of lifting.
  
• His wife suffered from depression and a medical condition and did not shop, which explained why the employee had to do it himself and ultimately had to lift the water.
  
• The surveillance reports, which were not drafted by the P.I., stated that the employee carried the water seven steps to his porch. But the video didn’t show that.
  
• The employee never said he had to use his cane all the time. In fact, he indicated that he could walk short periods without the cane. The surveillance footage showed him parking only in handicapped spots, which meant that it only showed him walking short distances.

Based largely on the above facts, the court concluded that the employee's misstatement about lifting water bottles was not a willful misrepresentation made for the purpose of obtaining benefits.

In closing, the court acknowledged that surveillance video can be used to establish fraud for purposes of forfeiture. But it has to be taken with a grain of salt, given that the person making the video is attempting to place the subject in the worst possible light.

The court affirmed a workers’ compensation judge’s ruling denying the employee’s fraud-forfeiture claim.

Share This Article: