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

In February of 2006, Mrs. Lanoue was a table games floor person for the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority and had been since October of 1997. She was covered under the long-term disability plan issued and funded by Prudential Insurance Company of America (NYSE:PRU). In April of 2006, Mrs. Lanoue filed for long-term disability, claiming to have chronic pain, fatigue and fibromyalgia. Her claim included an employee statement and an attending physician’s statement (APS) from rheumatologist, Dr. Sandeep Varma.

On August 1, 2006 Mrs. Lanoue submitted a comprehensive claimant statement where she complained of fibromyalgia, chronic pain and fatigue. The initial claim was denied, and Mrs. Lanoue appealed in October of 2006 through Prudential’s appeal system. With her appeal, she provided several medical records, including an evaluation completed by Dr. Varma stating that Mrs. Lanoue was tender at 18 trigger points associated with Fibromyalgia and experienced a ‘self reported pain disability’ indices ranging from eight to ten on a one to ten scale of pain.

Prudential then referred the case to an internist and rheumatologist, Dr. Paul Howard – an independent medical reviewer. It was Dr. Howard’s conclusion that Mrs. Lanoue suffered from a chronic pain syndrome consistent with Fibromyalgia, but that it “impart[s] no functional impairment.” He stated further that “The presence of any trigger point tenderness does not translate into a functional loss in the absence of corresponding findings of functional deficits. Her complaints of pain are self reported and are not substantiated by any clinical or diagnostic findings from any of her medical providers.”

Based on Dr. Howard’s medical file review, Prudential denied Mrs. Lanoue’s first appeal on January 10, 2007. In July of 2007, Mrs. Lanoue appealed the decision again, submitting additional medical records and statements from Dr. Varma. Dr. Varma addressed Dr. Howard’s statements, replying that the debilitating fatigue and pain in Mrs. Lanoue’s medical records were “not addressed by Dr. Howard, yet in my opinion, they are the very things that would interfere with her ability to function in a work environment.” Dr. Varma also stated that in his opinion, Mrs. Lanoue was unable to stand on her feet long enough in order to perform the job, and also that her fatigue and ‘brain fog’ would prevent her from properly supervising.

August 3, 2007, Prudential denied Mrs. Lanoue second appeal, relying heavily on statements in Dr. Howard’s report. Having exhausted all of her appeals, Mrs. Lanoue filed a lawsuit seeking her long-term disability benefits. she took her case to the While Prudential based their case on Dr. Howard’s examination of the records and claimed that Mrs. Lanoue did not show enough signs of physical limitation in order to qualify for disability, Judge Margolis of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut disagreed with Prudential. Judge Margolis concluded that Prudential failed to consider factors relevant to Fibromyalgia as well as the effect it has on the claimant’s ability to work properly.

Dr. Varma supplied medical charts showing tenderness in 18 of 18 trigger areas. If Dr. Howard were correct, then patients with Fibromyalgia – no matter how debilitating – could not be considered disabled unless some other form of physical issue were shown. However, the court maintains that pain and chronic fatigue are disabling on their own – without the need for further physical evidence. The court weighed the decision as to whether or not Prudential looked at all factors concerning Mrs. Lanoue and her medical records, and with that decision in mind, the court ruled for Mrs. Lanoue. The decision reinforces the fact that patients can be completely disabled through pain from Fibromyalgia and other diseases alone – without the addition of other physical signs.

*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

Many employees rely on disability insurance benefits if they have been injured or have developed a sickness which prevents them from working. Disability insurance provides individuals with a percentage of his or her typical salary until the employee is able to return to work or turns age 65. However, what employees aren’t usually aware of is that as soon as disability benefits start, the disability insurance company wants them to stop  and they will use a wide range of tactics to make that happen.

As an attorney who has worked on thousands of long-term disability claims against major insurance companies around the country, I can tell you that insurance company tactics can involve undercover investigations, fact-twisting, and even having bias doctors subjectively determine that you are not disabled as in a recent disability insurance case.

Graciella Saffon vs. Wells Fargo

Graciella Saffon, an employee of Wells Fargo Bank, had suffered from degeneration of her cervical spine for several years. This condition was confirmed by several MRIs, X-rays and other medical information. In 2001, Saffon was in a car accident which aggravated her neck condition, leading her to quit her desk job and apply for long-term disability benefits with MetLife. After a certain amount of time, the insurance company began paying Saffon long-term disability. However, a year after she began receiving these long-term benefits, MetLife stopped paying them, informing her that she no longer met the terms of disability.

How MetLife Worked to Deny Mrs. Saffon Her Long-Term Disability Benefits

MetLife hired two different doctors to look over Saffon’s medical records, resulting in the following statements.

The first physician, Dr. Thomas, stated that “Saffon’s file lacks clear sequential, detailed and objective clinical information, which would completely preclude Ms. Saffon from an attempt to return to work.” After Dr. Thomas’s file review, MetLife stopped the long-term benefit payments. Saffon appealed MetLife’s denial and provided an updated cervical MRI with additional medical records. A letter from her neurologist, Dr. Kudrow, was also included, stating that she had undergone various pain treatments which were ‘without sustainable benefit’ and that she was unable to remain in a sitting position for more than a few minutes at a time.

Following the submission of the Appeal, a second doctor, Dr. Menotti, looked over Saffon’s records and claimed that her reports of headaches and chronic pain syndrome were not enough to keep her from working. MetLife then stated that Saffon had not supplied them with a functional capability evaluation so they were unaware of her ability to function at work. The appeal was denied.

Mrs. Saffon sued MetLife in California District Court, seeking back-payment of her disability income benefits. The District Court affirmed MetLife’s denial, and Mrs. Saffon continued her battle for disability benefits by filing an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After reviewing the case, Judge Kozinski determined that MetLife had not given Saffon’s case a full and fair review for the following reasons:

“Its [MetLife] communications with Saffon and her doctors are hardly a model of clarity; they certainly do not explain 'in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant' what Saffon must do to perfect her claim.” According to an earlier case, Booton vs. Lockheed Medical Benefit Plan, the insurance company must clearly communicate to the policyholder why their claim is being denied and what they must do in order to perfect it. Judge Kozinski was not convinced that this had happened in Mrs. Saffon’s case.

Information in Mrs. Saffon’s medical records was ignored or not considered fairly.MetLife’s complaint that they were not provided with a functional capability evaluation was not followed by a chance for Mrs. Saffon to provide that information to them.

Judge Kozinski remanded the case back to the California District court, requiring that they give a full and fair look at Mrs. Saffon’s case taking into account the flaws in their review process and the ERISA laws. This was a victory for Ms. Saffon, who was given a second chance to show that she most certainly did deserve disability benefits due to her inability to work. However, one has to note that Mrs. Saffon did everything she could to show this in the first place, and had MetLife acted reasonably, Mrs. Saffon would not have had to go without her disability benefits or go through a painful and drawn out battle in court at all.

*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

Attorneys Dell and Gavidia filed suit against Federal Express (“FedEx”) on behalf of their client, Richard Bilheimer, in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, alleging that their client’s former employer Federal Express had breached the terms and conditions of the Federal Express Short-term Disability Plan by denying Mr. Bilheimer’s claim for disability benefits. Moreover, FedEx prevented Mr. Bilheimer from applying for long-term disability benefits as a result of denying his claim for short term disability benefits. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed in state court, FedEx removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, arguing that the short-term disability plan was an employee welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), a federal law which governs most employer provided disability, health and life insurance plans.

Attorneys Gavidia and Dell moved to remand the case back to state court and claimed that the short-term disability plan fell within the “payroll practice” exception of 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-1(b)(2) and was not governed by ERISA. Attorneys Gavidia and Dell also moved to recover attorney fees and costs against FedEx.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled in favor of Mr. Bilheimer, concluding in part, “[t]hat the payroll practice exception to ERISA applies and that remand is appropriate….” The opinion issued in this case is a precedent setting case that will set new standards for the way group disability plans are structured by employers. A claimant is always at a disadvantage if their claim is governed by ERISA, therefore Attorneys Dell & Schaefer are always challenging the applicability of ERISA in all disability insurance claims. Fedex offers short and long-term disability insurance as an employee benefit for thousands of employees. This case is currently pending in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.

For additional information please contact Attorneys Dell & Schaefer at 800-828-7583.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks