Insurers regularly use video surveillance in disability cases to ferretout bogus claims, but a federal appeals court has now ruled that whenthe surveillance is continued even after it has garnered no evidence offraud, the insurer’s ultimate decision to cut off benefits may besubject to “heightened scrutiny.”

“While surveillance is an aggressive tactic, nothing prohibits its use,”U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas L. Ambro wrote in the 57-page opinion in Postv. Hartford Insurance Co.