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

Our client, a trial attorney representing parents and children in dependency, delinquency, and guardianship cases contacted Attorneys Dell & Schaefer to see if she would be eligible for long-term disability benefits under her individual disability income and business overhead expense policies purchased from Unum. Upon consultation with attorney Robert Kerr, the client retained the law firm of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer to assist with the filing of her application for disability benefits under both types of policies based on paresthesias in her hands and feet. Additionally, her diabetic neuropathy was causing increased difficulty with walking, numbness and tingling in her feet and hands, and intense pain when sitting, standing, and walking.

Attorney Kerr guided the client through the process of preparing her long-term disability claim, instructing her as to the best approach to obtaining appropriate medical support. Once her claim was properly documented, based on Dell & Schaefer’s extensive experience in filing applications, Mr. Kerr worked closely with the client to complete the necessary paperwork. He then submitted it to Unum on her behalf and advised Unum to direct all correspondence to the office of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer only.

Attorneys Dell & Schaefer then responded to all inquiries made by Unum during the application process. Mr. Kerr followed up repeatedly with Unum to make sure that a decision was made in a timely manner. Within 60 days of submitting our client’s application for long-term disability benefits, Unum approved both the individual and business overhead expense long-term disability claims.

Mr. Kerr and the team at Dell & Schaefer will continue to handle our client’s claim on a monthly basis and document her ongoing disability to ensure that she remains eligible for benefits as long as she is disabled.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

During the week of July 13, 2009, Attorney Gregory Dell spent several days in Portland, Oregon deposing multiple employees of The Standard Disability Insurance Company. Prior to taking the depositions, The Standard refused to make their employees available for deposition and instructed their attorney to file a motion preventing Attorney Gregory Dell from taking the depositions. The court received multiple motions and entered an opinion stating that our client has the right to take the depositions and The Standard must produce their witnesses. The Standard’s motion for attorney fees against our client was denied. It is obvious that the Standard did not want their claims handling practices exposed through deposition testimony.
Attorneys Gregory Dell and Cesar Gavidia filed a lawsuit in Federal Court, after The Standard denied our client long-term disability benefits. Our client, an invasive cardiologist, has been unable to work in his occupation as result of neck, back and shoulder problems. Our client purchased his long-term disability policy as a benefit offered through his membership in the Southern Medical Association. Our client has been unable to perform the duties of an invasive cardiologist due to the requirement that her wear a heavy lead apron during most of the cardiac surgeries he performs on patients. Our client’s claim is supported by his treating neurologist.
The Standard relies on the paper review of our client’s file by two neurologist in order to deny disability benefits. Moreover, while reviewing the claim, the Standard never bothered to take into consideration what percentage of our client’s occupational duties required him to wear a lead apron. During the recent depositions of The Standard employees, none of the employees had any idea how much a lead apron weighs, how long our client would need to wear the lead apron during a procedure, or specifics about the procedures that an invasive cardiologist performs. The Standard was of the opinion that our client should have no restrictions and limitations, and that the only reason he gave up his career as an invasive cardiologist was so that he could work as a chief medical officer for a medical tool manufacturer.
It is interesting to note that our client had a long-term disability policy with Unum Provident and the definition of disability during the first two year of benefits was almost identical to the definition of disability in the The Standard long-term disability policy. Unum Provident evaluated our client’s claim and determined that he was unable to perform his duties as an invasive cardiologist. Furthermore, Unum Provident’s outside neurologist reviewed our client’s medical records and opined that our client should not wear a lead apron and therefore would be prevented from working as an invasive cardiologist. During deposition of the Standard employees, they did not have any explanation as to how Unum Provident’s doctor could find that our client had restrictions and limitations, but The Standard’s doctors found that our client was perfectly healthy.
The Standard recently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and basically alleged every possible defense they could think of, in hopes that something would stick. Attorneys Gregory Dell and Cesar Gavidia believe that the motion filed by the Standard is a desperate attempt to further their denial of long-term disability benefits. A response to the motion for Summary Judgment is currently being drafted and the jury trial is set for October 2009 in Federal Court.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks