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

Karen Bloom was a partner and doctor specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation at Rehabilitation Associates in Louisville, Kentucky. In 1999, she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). In 2002, she decided to perform most of her work on an outpatient, rather than inpatient basis.

At the beginning of 2004, Dr. Bloom became unable to continue working full-time for Rehabilitation Associates because of her MS. She subsequently transitioned into part-time work and filed a claim in March 2004 for long-term disability benefits under the group policy provided by Hartford through her employer since 2002.

On September 21, 2004, Harford denied Dr. Bloom’s claim. In its denial, Hartford claimed that Dr. Bloom had a pre-existing condition, based on a date of disability of December 1, 2002. Through her attorney, Dr. Bloom appealed the denial. While admitting that she had a condition that existed prior to the effective date of the policy (October 2, 2002), Dr. Bloom’s position was that she became disabled after the 365-day elimination period had run, since she had claimed a date of disability in 2004, and thus was still entitled to coverage under the policy. Hartford’s position was that when Dr. Bloom transitioned from inpatient to outpatient work, she did so because of her MS, and thus had reduced hours in 2002 because of her condition.

Hartford contacted Dr. Bloom’s doctors, who agreed that she was disabled, but not until 2004. Despite the full support of her doctors, Hartford denied her appeal on July 8, 2005. In its denial letter it recited the same incorrect information it had relied upon in its previous denial. In response, Dr. Bloom filed suit in Federal Court. The federal court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Bloom after concluding that Hartford’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because it had relied on circumstantial evidence of her disability – work records and salary reports – rather than the medical records that existed between Hartford’s determined date of disability and Dr. Bloom’s claimed date of disability. Hartford appealed the trial court’s decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the decision to award benefits to Dr. Bloom was upheld. However, the court ordered that Hartford conduct the appropriate evaluation as to the true date of disability and to determine the amount of benefits owed to her.

From a practical standpoint, this case highlights two important points. One, it is vitally important to have an attorney involved in filing a claim as soon as possible. Had an attorney been involved at the outset at the filing of the claim, Dr. Bloom could perhaps have avoided leaving the door open for Hartford to deny her based on a pre-existing condition. Two, while Dr. Bloom won her case, because of the decision on appeal she is still subject to the whims of Hartford in picking a date of disability and determining the benefits that she is owed. Ultimately, she may have won the battle for entitlement to benefits, but lost the war, since Hartford still controls her date of disability and how much money she will receive under the disability policy.

See Bloom v. Hartford Ins. Co., No. 07-6374 (6th Cir. Jul. 21, 2009).

• 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