Court Finds CIGNA Failed To Follow Proper Claim Denial Procedure, Nurse's Right To Pursue Disability Law Suit Under ERISA Supported

Linda Chavis filed a complaint against Cigna Group Insurance and Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) on June 24, 2009, alleging that the insurance company had breached two disability insurance contracts by refusing to pay her claims for short-term disability (STD) insurance and for long-term disability (LTD) insurance. While Cigna filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, Chavis stated in her complaint that she and her employer had paid all the required premiums for both policies, but she had been wrongfully denied benefits for both policies.

Click here to continue reading Court Finds CIGNA Failed To Follow Proper Claim Denial Procedure, Nurse's Right To Pursue Disability Law Suit Under ERISA Supported

 

Disability Benefits Ordered To Be Paid By CIGNA To HR Administrator Diagnosed Fibromyalgia

Mrs. Rebecca Duperry worked as payroll benefits HR administrator for Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) until April 7, 2006. Mrs. Duperry suffered from rheumatism, and stopped working in April pursuant to the advice of her rheumatologist. The rheumatologist told Duperry to ‘slow her work down’ and that cutting hours was a good idea, although working from home would be an even better idea.

October 16, 2006, Duperry claimed disability from three conditions,  rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Among the documents Mrs. Duperry submitted to CIGNA Life Insurance Company of North America were two attending physician statements completed by Duperry’s primary care physicians, Dr. Glenn Harris, and her rheumatologist, Dr. Supen Patel. In his statement, Dr. Harris stated that “plaintiff was limited to zero hours per day of climbing, balancing, stooping, kneeling, crouching, crawling, reaching, walking, sitting, or standing, and that plaintiff would "never" be able to return to work.” A statement was made also by Dr. Patel that Duperry was ‘permanently disabled’ and therefore could not return to work.

Click here to continue reading Disability Benefits Ordered To Be Paid By CIGNA To HR Administrator Diagnosed Fibromyalgia

 

CIGNA/LINA Penalized By The California Department Of Insurance

Recently, the California Department of Insurance settled with LINA, a daughter company of CIGNA to the tune of $600,000. What was this penalty for? According to California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, LINA was apparently ignoring certain claims that might have been valid disability claims.

Between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 LINA improperly handled insurance claims. It seems that not only did LINA deny many cases before ever receiving the medical proof those clients were entitled to their insurance payouts but LINA ignored important information that may have reversed the denied claim on a number of accounts.

Click here to continue reading CIGNA/LINA Penalized By The California Department Of Insurance

 

Attorneys Dell & Schaefer Files Lawsuit Against Cigna In Hawaii On Behalf Of Pharmaceutical Sales Representative

Our client, a pharmaceutical sales representative, was recently denied benefits by her carrier, Cigna, despite clear medical documentation of several severe medical problems that prevent her from performing the duties of her occupation.

Once Attorneys Dell & Schaefer had been retained, we discovered that Cigna had based its denial of disability benefits on three pieces of paper from only one of her three treating doctors. Cigna determined that our client’s vasculitis, idiopathic peripheral neuropathy, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue were not severe enough to support her claim for disability benefits.

Attorneys Robert Kerr and Gregory Dell at Dell & Schaefer submitted an Appeal to Cigna containing all of our client’s medical records in an effort to secure our client’s benefits without having to pursue a lawsuit. This information included notes from her primary care physician, the hospital where she received chemotherapy, and her rheumatologist. The rheumatologist was and continues to be the specialist primarily responsible for her care and treatment of the disabling conditions.

Despite the clear evidence of disability in the medical records and clear statements by her doctors in support of her claim for short-term disability benefits, Cigna denied the Appeal and determined that our client is not entitled to disability benefits. As a result of this disability denial, Attorneys Dell & Schaefer filed a lawsuit against Cigna within 2 days of the final short-term disability denial. Additionally, Attorneys Dell & Schaefer continues to work with the client in order to submit her application for long-term disability benefits.
 

CIGNA'S Attempt To Limit Claimant To A Maximum Of 2 Years Of Long-Term Disability Benefits Limitation For An Organic Brain Disorder Such As Bi-Polar Is Reversed By The District Court

Cigna attempted to deny lifetime disability benefits for a claimant suffering from a psychiatric organic brain disorder, but the district court of Colorado disagreed. Following a remand from the court of appeals, which ruled the district court had erred by considering evidence outside the “administrative record,” the district court nonetheless reaffirmed its ruling in plaintiff’s favor after carefully considering all of the evidence in the record and analyzing each of the medical opinions presented. The specific issue was whether Jewell was disabled due to a functional psychiatric disorder or on account of an organic disorder. The court began its discussion by rejecting the insurer’s argument that the policy provision limiting benefits to 24 months for conditions “caused” or “contributed to” by a psychiatric condition was applicable to co-morbid organic and functional organic illnesses. The court found the insurer’s interpretationwould mean that an employee whose sole affliction is a disabling organic brain dysfunction would be entitled to lifetime LTD benefits, while an employee who suffers from a disabling organic brain dysfunction plus a non-organic psychiatric illness would be limited to only to 24 months of LTD benefits. The latter employee thus would be penalized for his or her additional condition. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the Plan language. *31-*32.


Turning then to the evidence, the court next explained that even the absence of objective test results such as an EEG, MRI or CT scan did not rule out the possibility of an organic brain dysfunction. However, if such evidence had existed, the issue would have been more clear-cut. Nonetheless, the court found the preponderance of the evidence favored the plaintiff. The court explained:


Ultimately, however, the Court is persuaded by the well-supported opinions of Dr. Peters, the only neurologist who offered an opinion in this case, and Drs. Caster and Maiman, Plaintiff's psychiatrist and psychologist. Each of these doctors believed that a diagnosis of organic brain dysfunction was not dependent upon positive objective test results. The Court has been given no cause to doubt the experience, expertise, and integrity of these doctors. Certainly, positive objective test results would have made Plaintiff's condition easier to diagnose. However, based on the documents in the record, the absence of positive objective test results is not dispositive. The Court finds and determines that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that an organic brain dysfunction "caused" or "contributed to" Plaintiff's disability as of October 18, 2000. Thus, the LTD mental illness limitation does not apply to Plaintiff. *41-*42.

Jewell v. Life Ins.Co. of North America, 2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 27982 (D.Colo. March 20, 2009)