CIGNA Ordered To Pay Disability Benefits 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.

Because the doctors both filled out additional information regarding what Duperry could perform – such as sitting, standing, etc, there seemed to be some confusion with their reports. Therefore, Cigna’s case manger Melissa Graham, sought input from a nurse case manager. Cigna’s nurse case manager contacted Dr. Patel who explained that Duperry was disabled from fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis and that she suffered from achiness and other symptoms. He stated that her rheumatoid arthritis was under control at that point, but that she was still unable to return to work.

Based upon a brief conversation with Duperry’s treating physician, Cigna concluded that Duperry did not have sufficient evidence to prove she was disabled. Duperry appealed the denial, and Cigna hired Dr. Levesque from Duke University Medical Center, to conduct a paper review of Duperry’s medical records. Dr. Levesque opined that Duperry is not disabled as the “the restrictions by Dr. Patel and Dr. Harris are not supported by the available information.” Duperry’s initial application for long term disability benefits was denied an her appeal was denied by Cigna on February 15, 2008.

On April 18, 2008 Duperry submitted a second appeal to Cigna, highlighting her recent approval of Social Security Disability benefits. On April 23, 2008, Cigna stated that they would not allow a second appeal as she had exhausted her appeals. Cigna could have easily avoided a lawsuit had they simply considered Duperry’s updated medical information.

Duperry then proceeded to take her case to court, in which Cigna continued to argue that Duperry’s disability was based upon subjective pain complaints and lacked objective evidence. In every report from Dr. Levesque, the medical conditions of Duperry were acknowledged, however the Dr. found none of the conditions to be disabling. Duperry claimed disability as a result of her chronic pain. During the courts review of the case, the judge stated, “There is no limitation that a disease cannot be disabling on the basis of pain or other self-reported, subjective symptoms alone.”

The court looked at Cigna’s basis for denial,  Dr. Levesque’s statements, including the “lack of physical findings associated with this diagnosis.” The court maintains that a disability can exist although there is no objective evidence of a disability. The pain alone can be enough for an individual to be considered disabled and with her Fibromyalgia, Duperry was.

The court reversed Cigna’s denial of long-term disability benefits and ordered Cigna to pay her disability benefits and all related court costs.

*About the Author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell and Schaefer (www.diattorney.com). Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. He can be reached at 888-SAY-Dell or gdell@diattorney.com.


 

CIGNA / LINA fined $600,000 And Required To Reconsider Prior Disability Denials

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.

This means that individuals who had been paying their insurance premiums incase they were ever labeled ‘disabled’ and were unable to work and care for their families were now left with nothing to turn to. Even if their claims were 100% valid and legitimate, LINA may have simply turned a blind eye to their case. For this, LINA has paid the penalty and has agreed to reopen each of the cases reviewed between January 2005 and December 2007 to determine whether any of those cases should have been approved when they were denied.

LINA has a completely new set of standards they must use when reviewing these cases, however, policyholders have a right to be more than a little worried or upset. Because contracts are complicated, policyholders need to have the proper representation to help them receive the benefits they deserve. Often times, because contracts are so complicated, insurance companies have a multitude of chances to slow down the process or pause it completely.

Individuals who were denied by LINA or CIGNA between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2007 (must have letter of denial with LINA or CIGNA logo on top) should seriously consider hiring an attorney to ensure that their best interests are being taken into account. Normal individuals are not trained in contracts and law, so most people will have a difficult time understanding the many facets and confusing twists of a contract. An attorney puts normal individuals on the same level with insurance companies who have studied contracts and laws so that a fair decision can be made.

According to long-term disability attorney Gregory Dell, “Disability Income policies are drafted with ambiguous and confusing contractual terms. This provides insurance companies with multiple reasons for delaying and denying disability income benefits.” This means that while normal people may have a difficult time understanding contracts, attorneys can easily explain the intricacies and help their clients and keep insurance companies on track to a payment of benefits.

By hiring an attorney, individuals can ensure that their best interests are being taken care of. The policyholders who are clients of CIGNA/LINA and will be facing reassessment should consider legal representation in order to ensure that they receive what is rightfully theirs. This could result in some clients being paid the benefits that they were originally denied, and in some cases, with interest. Using the new standards, LINA must evaluate each and every case that was denied between those two years, and the individuals who have an attorney are more likely to prevail.

If your claim was wrongfully denied by CIGNA/LINA contact Attorneys Dell & Schaefer to discuss any potential remedies you may have. Dell & Schaefer has assisted thousands of claimants with their claims for long-term disability benefits. Call us at 888-Say-Dell or visit diAttorney.com for more information.
 

Dell & Schaefer Files Lawsuit Against Cigna In Hawaii To Secure Short And Long-Term Disability Benefits 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)