Witnesses: Credibility: Exaggeration

MONTANA SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EBI/Orion Group v. Blythe, 1998 MT 90 WCC found claimant's testimony concerning hallucinations and his mental condition generally not credible in light of all the evidence in the record and the Court's observation of claimant. The record suggested claimant knew about mental illnesses and their characteristics, that his presentation was nonetheless atypical for the illnesses diagnosed by his treating physician, that his scores on a personality test suggested a high possibility of faking, and that his diary near the claimed injury, while replete with references to lawsuits and a high recovery, did not mention the symptoms he later claimed began shortly after the incident.

Kuntz v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 1998 MT 5 Substantial evidence supported WCC determination that claimant exaggerated the impact of one of his injuries on his pre-existing back condition, including the fact that the mentioned other injuries, but not this one, during a medical examination, and that he applied for a new job, and a promotion, with the representation that his back had been stable.

MONTANA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COURT DECISIONS

Car Werks, LLC v. Uninsured Employers' Fund [12/09/15] 2015 MTWCC 21 An uninsured employer was found not credible where his account of his employee’s injuries from a non-work related motorcycle accident was greatly exaggerated in comparison to the employee’s medical records from the accident.
Boster v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. [12/19/02] 2002 MTWCC 64 Claimant who has not worked since 1994 back injury not entitled to total disability benefits where Court was absolutely persuaded, based on entire record, including video surveillance tapes, and observation of claimant during trial, that claimant was exaggerating his pain, was unmotivated, and was simply comfortable with his non-working lifestyle.
Romans v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [6/1/00] 2000 MTWCC 32,aff'd 2001 MT 64N (nonciteable opinion) Overwhelming medical evidence suggested claimant was not disabled as he claimed. Court concluded claimant was consciously exaggerating his symptoms or even malingering.