What is your view or opinion on this? Please see below.

Fraud should only be investigated if there's predication of fraud. If investigator received no other data leading him to believe individual was committing worker's comp fraud, then inquiring with employer and using covert surveillance on private property may lack a reasonable basis or illegal. When predication is present, surveillance is proper. If investigator spoke with owner on matters and learned about the man's work duties and worker's comp claim, then predication may have established appropriately. Further surveillance is reasonable since you observe and gather evidence about activities in question without arousing suspicion. Since investigator interviewed auction owner, who provided testimonial to work the suspect was performing, surveillance corroborates this statement independently. This is useful in fraud where power, recruitment, and pressure are present. Because we believe suspect is inclined to commit fraud, if he becomes aware of the investigation, he might extend this behavior onto the owner to influence them into retracting the statement. Having surveillance gives the investigator evidence that can stand on its own.