ACC spies, with cameras

ACC is spending millions each year spying on claimants it suspects are committing fraud. Cate Broughton reports.

ACC spent $5.1 million in the last year on investigating suspected fraud, including internal and contracted staff, surveillance, and lawyers for prosecutions, but claims it saved taxpayers about $7.3m in weekly compensation payments for fake claims.

One of those on whom ACC has spied is self-employed Christchurch landscaper Ivan Stryder, who has been in a bitter dispute with ACC since he injured his back at work in April 2014.

The 44-year-old, who featured ina Stuff series about ACC in July, suffered a severely bulged disc in his lower back and the subsequent surgery in April 2016 failed to relieve severe pain.

Four months after the surgery, an ACC-funded independent medical assessor said Stryder could resume fulltime ‘‘light to moderate’’ work duties, but should limit ‘‘heavy lifting, pushing, pulling or carrying on a more frequent basis for the medium term’’.

Stryder objected to this, and two further ACC-funded medical assessments, citing his ongoing pain and reports from his own sports doctors.

Documents supplied to Stryder by ACC last month revealed his case manager requested surveillance in August 2016, based on suspicions Stryder may try to stay on weekly compensation long term without medical justification.

The Privacy Act permits ACC investigations as long as they are conducted for lawful, relevant purposes, including the protection of public revenue, and are done in a lawful, and not overly intrusive, way.

Stryder was watched for up to six hours on three days from August 18, 2016. The ‘‘operative’’ was to get video footage of Stryder lifting something heavy, and to record his work hours over a day.

On August 18, a man who resembled Stryder was tracked for ‘‘a number of hours’’ during the surveillance, but later ‘‘discounted from the inquiry’’. Another day, Stryder was seen bending down to lift a red bag. He was not seen doing heavy lifting, but ‘‘was seen to walk, or even run freely’’.

The investigator concluded that the hours Stryder was seen working ‘‘more or less’’ matched the hours he was medically certified for. The inquiry was closed after finding little evidence of fraud, though the investigator noted there was a ‘‘possibility that future investigation will be required’’.

An ACC spokesman said the agency ‘‘decided not to pursue the matter further’’.

Stryder said he was angry when he found out about the surveillance because he had done nothing wrong. ACC said concerns that Stryder was fraudulently receiving weekly compensation justified the need for video surveillance.

‘‘Even after proof of failed back surgery their doctors are still saying I am fit for 40 hours’ work a week doing landscaping, labouring and heavy physical work and they will not listen to my treating doctor, my GP,’’ Stryder said.

In total, ACC spent $3200 on video surveillance and about $19,500 on lawyers to represent ACC at reviews of decisions on Stryder’s entitlements. It spent another $1500 for security at a review he had with dispute resolution service Fair Way Resolution Ltd.

Stryder believed he was still being watched, but ACC denied that. ‘‘I don’t doubt it, they are just trying to exit me any way they can,’’ he said.

An ACC spokesman said the agency spent $5.1m on its integrity services unit, which investigated 698 cases, in the 2017-18 year.

Of those, 427 involved fraud, waste or abuse and 58 were assessed as fraud.

Just over $105,000 was spent on private investigation services for the same period.

Of the 58 cases assessed as fraud, 53 involved fraudulently gained weekly compensation, and social and vocational services. Five cases involved fraudulently gained treatment payments by treatment providers.

ACC prosecuted six people,

‘‘Like a number of people who have had unhappy dealings with ACC, they get mad as hell and that can lead to . . . nothing less than warfare.’’

Lawyer Peter Sara, who represents Ivan Stryder