Church v Echuca Regional Health [2008] VSCA 153 does not lay down any particular test concerning the use or utility of surveillance evidence in serious injury applications; it was a case dependent on its own facts. A trial judge is entitled to focus on what is depicted in tendered surveillance film rather than on unsupported assertions about periods of inactivity during broader surveillance. There is no inconsistency in a trial judge accepting that a worker cannot perform pre-injury employment while also finding that the worker exaggerated the extent of symptoms and restrictions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 139 later cases that cite this judgment.
4 of the 139 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.