Video doesn’t Tip Court on Fraud Charge against Punched-in-the-Face Nurse

Case File

When a nurse was caught on video working in the yard, going shopping, and getting around pretty well, did it mean she was a fraud or was it consistent with what she told her doctors?

Case

Harmon v. Faxton Sunset St. Luke's Health Care Center Inc., No. CV-24-0876 (N.Y. App. Div. 10/09/25).

What Happened?

A registered nurse was punched in the face in two separate incidents by a patient at the facility where she worked, resulting in a concussion, fractured nose, and neurological symptoms, including nausea, headaches, and dizziness.

The nurse's workers' compensation claim was established, and she was awarded temporary total disability benefits.

Later, the employer and carrier raised an issue of fraud, asserting that video surveillance established that the nurse misrepresented her physical condition and capabilities, particularly regarding her reported need to wear sunglasses or a sun visor to prevent headaches and her reported limitations on walking, bending, squatting, and driving.

Looking for caselaw in New York or any other U.S. state? Look to Simply Research

A Workers' Compensation Law Judge found insufficient evidence showing fraud, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The carrier appealed to court.

Rule of Law

Under New York's Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, a claimant who knowingly makes a false statement or representation as to a material fact to obtain workers' compensation benefits or influence a determination relative thereto will be disqualified from receiving compensation directly attributable to such false statement or representation.

What the Court Said

The court found no reason to overturn the Board's ruling, noting that the Board reviewed the surveillance videos. The videos captured short periods when the nurse sat outside her house smoking cigarettes, picking up her yard, and going to the grocery store.

Although the videos captured the nurse wearing sunglasses only on the day she went to an IME appointment, the court explained that that day was particularly sunny, and the videos reflect that the weather on the remainder of the days was overcast or that the nurse remained in shade.

The court also addressed claims that the nurse was squatting and bending in her yard as well as walking around stores.

"The Board credited claimant's testimony that her symptoms waxed and waned, and that on good days she attempted to do as much as she could, which is consistent with her treating providers' medical advice to slowly increase her physical activities and pace herself," the court wrote. "Furthermore, claimant's medical records and IME reports reflect that claimant informed her treating medical provider as well as the carrier's medical consultant about improvements and/or setbacks of her symptoms, including the frequency of her headaches and improved mobility, at each of her examinations."

Regarding driving, the court explained that the nurse was medically advised not to drive but was captured on video driving. However, the Board credited the nurse's testimony that she went from driving "once in a while" to not driving at all after she hit her house with the car because she could not see well.

"Upon our review of claimant's medical and IME records and the surveillance videos, and deferring to the Board's assessment of claimant's credibility, the Board's decision that there was insufficient proof demonstrating a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation is supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed," the court wrote.

Verdict: The court affirmed the Board's decision

Takeaway

While video surveillance can sometimes point to the "smoking gun" in a workers' compensation fraud case, courts will look to see whether what's on video is inconsistent with what's being claimed about a worker's injury before determining that fraud has taken place.

Share This Article: