Global insurance giant MetLife knew that a former policewoman in the Illawarra was either heavily pregnant or had recently given birth when it directed a private investigator to spy on her.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The woman, who was already feeling persecuted due to the paranoia associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, noticed her "tail" and became fearful she was being targeted by criminals related to her police work.
MetLife, which was trying to discredit the woman's disability claim over PTSD, briefed the private investigator that the woman "may be expecting a child, or may recently have given birth".
But despite spying on the woman for 30 hours, the investigator found no evidence that was relevant to her claim.
Both the woman and her lawyer believe she was simply being harassed when she was at her most vulnerable.
The woman was followed and photographed visiting her physiotherapist when she needed treatment for complications from the birth.
The investigator "spot checked" her car, took photos of a baby capsule inside and noted in his report that the woman "did not appear to be heavily pregnant".
The woman, who wants to remain anonymous, spoke to the Mercury this week.
Her eyes filled with tears as she recalled the humiliation and devastation she felt when she realised the lengths the private investigator had gone to gather evidence against her.
"I don't know what they thought they could catch me doing. I have no idea. I just don't know why they needed to do this," she said.
"What did they expect to see? What did they think they would catch me doing, whether they thought I was heavily pregnant or had just given birth?
"In reality I was spending an awful lot of time sitting at home in my pyjamas, with swollen ankles," she said.
"After giving birth, it was the first time I'd left the house and they filmed me going to physio.
"I had to do it, I was in agony with my back from giving birth, it was five minutes down the road."
She has reached a point where she feels she has to justify her every move.
"They wrote in the report they spot checked my car. They found a baby capsule in it. I have no idea what that shows, what it's meant to show.
"Knowing someone has been following you, watching you, it's gut wrenching, it's disgusting."
The woman said the surveillance fuelled her paranoia and caused stress in her relationships.
One of the symptoms of PTSD was paranoia and knowing you were under surveillance magnified your fears and insecurities, she explained.
"It confuses things in your mind. I know there are people out there I have arrested who could follow me, it happens, police get followed by criminals, so you question everything. Is it a private investigator or is there a real threat? It's horrible."
She said she constantly sought reassurance from her husband, who was extremely understanding, but with such paranoia she was hard to live with.
She checked under her car before going out, worried her conversations on her balcony were being recorded, checked her smoke detectors for bugs.
"I'd check if anything had been moved in the house when I got home. If I heard a voice I'd walk around and search the entire house.
"I'd be talking to my husband on the balcony and worry how far away they would have to be to pick up audio of our conversations."
Following MetLife's decision to deny the claim, the psychiatrist who treated her said a "rather theoretical and abstract approach to [the woman's] ongoing psychiatric symptomatologies pervades their [MetLife's] rejection of her total and permanent disability".
"It does not take into consideration the significant psychiatric factors that prevent [her] from engaging at work on account of her psychiatric impairments," the doctor's report stated.
He said that in his opinion the woman, despite treatment, "has not been able to overcome her psychiatric disability to the extent she has been able to productively work in a relevant occupation".
The doctor said that despite her "best efforts" the woman "continues to be significantly psychiatrically restricted".
Her lawyer, Erin Sellars, said MetLife, in denying the claims, referred to the surveillance report dated August 8, 2012.
"It reported she was observed on three days of surveillance and noted that she went to physio, went straight home and was only briefly sighted on two of those days," said Ms Sellars, from Slater and Gordon's police compensation group.
"The report also makes absolutely no adverse comments about the surveillance. She was so affected by this surveillance, then at the end it came to zero."
Ms Sellars said three full days of surveillance proved nothing but "had a significant and devastating psychological effect when this sick woman was probably at her most vulnerable, just having had her baby".
MetLife has told the Mercury it uses surveillance "selectively and sparingly and only when it has concerns about the legitimacy of a claim".
Ms Sellars said: "It should be noted that in its determination to decline my client's claim there was no evidence provided at all to show that the claim was in any way illegitimate or unmeritorious.
"I can see no reason surveillance was undertaken in this matter at all.
"This is another example of shocking behaviour by MetLife when dealing with a very sick woman.
"It's clear from the case instructions that MetLife when they assigned the private investigator knew that she was pregnant or had recently given birth."
Mrs Sellars said she couldn't understand what activities MetLife thought her client would be doing during the period immediately before or after the birth of her child.
"The surveillance I believe was utilised as a means of harassing a claimant. My client knew she was being watched and the effect it had on her condition has been enormous."
Mrs Sellars said MetLife had denied her client's claim despite every examining doctor agreeing that she has chronic PTSD.
"I strongly believe the claim has been wrongly declined and I am very confident of successfully obtaining her TPD benefits despite the traumatic way in which her claim has been handled," she said.
"I have advised my client regarding the strength of her claim and I am instructed to pursue it.
"In order to resolve our client's claim as quickly as possible, I will be attempting to have a sensible and practical discussion with MetLife."
MetLife has been contacted for comment but said it could not comment on individual cases.