Disability Benefit Claims Law Blog : Disability Benefits Lawyer & Attorney : Dell & Schaefer : Disability Insurance Claims Law Blog

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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As an attorney for clients who go up against disability insurance companies all over the country, I can tell you that the insurance contracts are often full of legalese and gibberish that most individuals don’t understand. Unfortunately, most individuals don’t understand even the communication they receive from the disability insurance companies, such as why their claim has been denied. According to the outcome of the case below, even a judge may find communication from the insurance company difficult to understand.

Nancy Love vs. National City Corporation Welfare Benefits Plan

Nancy Love worked for National City Corporation for two decades before she was forced to stop working. When Mrs. Love began experiencing dizziness, fatigue and blurred vision, she visited the doctor and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Mrs. Love applied for and received short term benefits from the National City Corporation Welfare Benefits Plan, underwritten by Liberty Mutual. Short term disability benefits were for 18 months, and when Mrs. Love benefits expired, she applied for and received long-term disability benefits.

Mrs. Love received the disability benefits for three years before Liberty Mutual determined that she was no longer what the plan considered to be ‘disabled.’ According to the policy, an individual is considered disabled for the first two years if he or she is unable to perform their job but after the first two years, they’re only considered disabled if they’re unable to perform any job, including a job they could take classes and qualify for, etc.

Liberty Mutual Hired Physicians to Discredit Several of Love’s Attending Physicians

To first deny Love for any more disability benefits, Liberty Mutual relied on Doctor Jonathan Sands. Dr. Sands reviewed Love’s medical file and determined that although she most likely did have multiple sclerosis, there was no clinical attack noted, and that “no objective limitations in functional ability or capacity were noted.”

This report was sent to Love’s physician, who did not respond. Soon after, Mrs. Love’s benefits were terminated due to Dr. Sands’ assessment and Mrs. Love’s inability to provide information which supported her assertions that she was unable to perform any job due to her disability. Mrs. Love appealed Liberty Mutual’s denial, turning over more medical records, including a functional capacity evaluation, a vocational evaluation and a physical therapy evaluation. The next physician Liberty Mutual had to examine the case was Dr. Gerald Winkler. Dr. Winkler stated, after reviewing the files, that Mrs. Love was not totally disabled and could perform certain tasks, such as answering telephones, working at computers or dealing with the general public. Love’s appeal was denied.

Failure to Explain Sufficiently

Love filed a lawsuit in the Illinois Federal District Court against the insurance company, citing ERISA law and claiming:

- That the insurance company did not consider all medical evidence provided to them by Love, and;

- The insurance company did not fully explain why they had denied Mrs. Love her benefits.

The Illinois District Court ruled in favor of Liberty Mutual, pushing Love to appeal their decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Since ERISA requires all insurance companies who deny policyholders to “set forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant,” the appeal court felt that Liberty Mutual had not done so. The court found that neither the termination of benefits letter nor the appeal denial letter properly explained to Love why she would no longer be receiving disability benefits.

Another thing Dr’s Sands or Dr. Winkler did not address was the contradiction they held with Mrs. Love’s attending physicians. Every physician that personally examined Mrs. Love felt that she was not able to work at any job, and that she was unable to perform even small tasks for more than a few hours at a time. Dr. Sands and Dr. Winkler did not address those issues. They did not go over the statements or medical tests and explain why they weren’t credible or able to be used as proof of Mrs. Love’s disabilities. Therefore, the court found that there was insufficient explanation on this part as well.

The case was remanded to Liberty Mutual with requirements to fully review the case of Mrs. Love and determine her eligibility for disability benefits in the fairest of ways. While this is a victory for Mrs. Love, the truth is that she should not have had to fight so long in order to get what she deserved in the first place. With as many physicians’s reports as Mrs. Love had all stating her disability made it unable for her to work  she should not have had to fight so hard for what she deserved, but she did. Perhaps, the ruling in this case will make future cases easier for Liberty Mutual policyholders who are unable to work and have credible medical support.

*About the Author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of the firm Dell and Schaefer (www.diattorney.com). He has assisted thousands of claimants with their claims for long-term disability benefits.. He can be reached at 888-SAY-Dell or gdell@diattorney.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks