Disability Scam Exposed: Ski Trips, Caskets

Businessperson in handcuffs with hands clasped — Photo: Motortion Films / Shutterstock

Disability insurance is built on trust supported by verification; when someone lies about capacity to work and collects benefits for years while performing strenuous labor and taking international ski trips, the system is not merely gamed—it is defrauded, and the record in this case shows it clearly.

The Short Version

A New Jersey funeral director, Steven D. Stankovits, was convicted of wire fraud and false statements for a long-running Social Security disability scheme.
Prosecutors documented that while claiming severe functional limits, he worked as a funeral director, lifted caskets, did physical labor, and took extended ski trips.
The court-validated loss exceeded $585,000; he received a sentence of a year and a day in federal prison and restitution obligations.
The case illustrates how disability fraud typically works—concealed work and false reporting—within a program that otherwise allows limited, reported work under specific rules.

What the evidence proves

The government’s case did not rest on one offhand inconsistency; it rested on years of representations, documented work activity, travel, and money flows. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey, Stankovits secured Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) eligibility in 2010, retroactive to 2007, based on claims that he could not work, could not comfortably sit for more than 15 minutes, could not bend to dress, struggled to lift even a carton of milk, and had given up skiing. He repeated those claims in subsequent statements to keep benefits flowing, resulting in more than $585,000 in payments. In reality, he was working as a licensed funeral director—at two funeral homes—performing manual tasks such as shoveling snow, gardening, carrying 160-pound caskets down stairs, and climbing a ladder to a roof to install a sign. He also took long flights for ski trips to Cortina d’Ampezzo in Italy, Lake Tahoe, and Park City, and purchased a season pass in Killington, Vermont. A federal jury convicted him of four counts of wire fraud and one count of making false statements; he was later sentenced to a year and a day in prison. These are not allegations at large—they are adjudicated facts in a federal prosecution, summarized by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and supported by the indictment and verdict.

Local outlets reported the same core facts: the physical claims he made to the agency, the strenuous work he actually performed, the ski itineraries that contradicted his asserted limitations, and the resulting prison sentence. The coverage tracked the government’s filings and the jury’s verdict, and it put a number on the loss: more than $585,000 in benefits that, the court found, he was not entitled to receive.

How disability fraud typically works—mechanics and motives

Most disability-fraud prosecutions are not about an able-bodied imposter grabbing a benefit once and vanishing; they are about maintenance fraud—concealing work activity, misreporting earnings, and reiterating false functional limits to preserve eligibility. SSDI has a complex set of work incentives—the trial work period, extended period of eligibility, and earnings thresholds known as substantial gainful activity (SGA)—intended to let legitimately disabled beneficiaries test their capacity to work without instantly losing coverage. Those rules make “working while on disability” not automatically wrongful; the issue is whether work and earnings were reported promptly and whether statements about functional capacity were truthful. Improper payments frequently arise from beneficiaries failing to report work; program integrity reviews then uncover the mismatch between claims and reality.

Congress and the Social Security Administration have, for decades, equipped prosecutors with specific tools to address fraud in Title II programs—wire fraud, false statements, and program-fraud provisions that become salient when a beneficiary knowingly lies about material facts that drive eligibility and payment amounts. Administrative remedies exist as well, but where the record shows sustained deception and large losses, criminal enforcement is a predictable outcome. Deterrence, restitution, and a visible defense of program integrity are the institutional aims, and they are backed by a consistent legal framework.

Where reasonable confusion ends and fraud begins

People unfamiliar with SSDI’s rules sometimes infer that any work equals fraud; that is wrong. The program is designed to encourage attempts to return to work and allows defined earnings during trial periods. Honest beneficiaries report their work, cooperate with continuing disability reviews, and update the agency about changes in condition. Fraud enters when a claimant lies—affirmatively or by omission—about material facts, particularly the ability to work, actual work performed, and earnings that cross the SGA threshold. In the Stankovits matter, the government did not simply point to a W-2 and stop; it juxtaposed his sweeping claims of incapacity with documented, sustained physical labor and ski travel, then proved willful false statements in a formal Disability Update Report, a quintessentially material submission. A jury weighed that evidence and convicted; a judge sentenced him and ordered restitution. That sequence distinguishes this case from borderline reporting errors or good-faith misunderstandings of complex rules.

The dollar figure also matters. Overpayments happen for administrative reasons and can be corrected without criminal charges. But more than half a million dollars over nearly fifteen years, while filing and reaffirming claims of severe limitations inconsistent with observed activities, meets prosecutors’ threshold for a deliberate scheme. Comparable cases—smaller in scale—have resulted in prison terms and restitution, signaling that courts see a bright line between complexity-induced error and orchestrated deception.

Why this case resonates beyond one defendant

SSDI’s legitimacy depends on public confidence that the program targets benefits to those who meet statutory criteria. High-profile convictions serve a dual function: they demonstrate accountability when claimants misrepresent their condition, and they reassure compliant beneficiaries and taxpayers that the system can detect and punish abuse. The Social Security Office of Inspector General has testified that a large share of SGA-related improper payments originate with beneficiaries’ failure to report work—an avoidable gap that better data-matching and more timely reviews can narrow. But technology is only part of the solution; the other part is candor from claimants about functional limits and work, especially during mandatory reviews and update reports.

The policy implication is not to curtail legitimate work-incentive pathways—those are vital for people with fluctuating or partial disabilities—but to sharpen the distinction between lawful, reported work and concealment. Automated earnings checks, tighter scheduling of work-related continuing disability reviews, and targeted fraud analytics can all reduce the long tail of undetected concealment without chilling honest reporting. The Stankovits case—with false statements, corroborated physical activity inconsistent with claimed limits, and a substantial loss—shows the archetype prosecutors will continue to prioritize.

Practical takeaways for beneficiaries and professionals

For beneficiaries: if your medical condition improves, your work increases, or your earnings approach SGA, report promptly and keep records. Learn the trial work and extended eligibility rules; they exist to help you test work without losing coverage, but they require transparency. For representatives and employers: document job duties accurately and be cautious with task assignments for employees on disability benefits; mismatches between described limitations and observed work are exactly what investigators probe. For policymakers: invest in data-matching that flags concealed work earlier, resource continuing disability reviews appropriately, and maintain clear communications that distinguish good-faith work attempts from fraud. That balance both protects the public fisc and preserves the program’s core promise to people who genuinely cannot sustain substantial gainful activity.