A series of articles emphasizing practical
knowledge you can't find in practice guides
and interviews with experts who share
their techniques for effective and efficient
case management

Archives

This issue, Marjory Harris reviews some really bad movies.

A Sad Face Fills a Window, Or, “When Is a Zoom Lens Not A Magnification Device?” After obtaining reports from the Primary Treating Physician, a panel Qualified Medical Evaluator, and a consultant of the insurer’s choice, all of whom found the applicant to have 80 to 90% permanent disability from post traumatic stress, defendant hired an investigator. The applicant was videotaped gazing out from his picture window. At the deposition of the treating psychiatrist, applicant’s attorney voir-dired the investigator before he showed the videotape. The investigator claimed he did not use a magnification device and was across the street in a van when he filmed applicant’s house. At one point, the camera pans and the applicant’s face fills the screen. The investigator admitted he used a zoom lens. He did not consider it a “magnification device” since it was something that came with the camera. The applicant's mental health		A person is liable for invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device if it could not have been obtained without a trespass. Investigator may not trespass (physical invasion of privacy) or use visual enhancing devices such as telephoto or zoom lens (constructive invasion of privacy) unless supported by articulable suspicion of suspected fraudulent insurance claim. Civil Code §1708.8 Voir dire of Investigator Concerning Use of Magnification Device Letter to Opposing Counsel on violation of Civil Code Section 1708.8
deteriorated further after he saw the video. He did not feel safe even his own home. The attorney sent a letter to opposing counsel (see sidebar). The videotapes were never mentioned again and the case settled for over $300,000 in permanent disability. < Previous | Next >