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

For several years, Elizabeth Black was the executive director of Milwaukee World Festival, Inc. (MWF), the organization that governs Summerfest, a music festival in Milwaukee. Black was covered under the company’s disability insurance plan, underwritten and administered by Standard Insurance Company. Black was diagnosed with multiple aortic aneurysms bulging and weak areas in the aorta. In 2001, Black had surgery to repair the aneurysms and was recommended by her doctor to medically manage a third aneurysm in the descending aorta.

After surgery and recuperation, Black went back to work in the summer of 2001 being monitored closely by her doctor, Dr. Brian Griffin, as well as her cardiologist, Dr. David Slosky for hypertension. At the end of 2002, Black was in contract negotiations, trying to land another five year contract with MWF, but at the same, time her relationship with co-workers was strained to the point that she was experiencing harassment. In a letter sent to the counsel for MWF, Black complained about her co-workers, the harassment and her desire for a new contract. She sent letters from her two doctors as well as her neurologist Dr. Griffin explained that Black, “has significant hypertensive problems . . . it is vital that her blood pressure be well controlled. Stress, particularly in the form of verbal abuse, is very deleterious for her blood pressure control”

Dr. Slosky wrote that Black, “has significant hypertension . . . her blood pressure is quite labile and reactive to stressful conditions. It is particularly sensitive to acute and direct confrontation. . . . The patient should not be subject to harassment of this kind.” And the neurologist, Dr. Eric Maas, wrote, “any undue stress should be minimized given Black's medical history particularly with regard to hypertension and her vascular disease,” and that “had been undergoing a great deal of stress stemming from her responsibilities as Director of Summerfest in Milwaukee and her contract negotiations,” and he requested “that these factors be taken into account in planning these negotiations with Elizabeth.”

In July 2003, the committee voted not to renew Black’s contract. On August 6, 2003, Mrs. Black filed a disability claim with Standard Insurance Company. Black sent a letter to the board of directors, stating that she was unable to perform her duties and that doctors had advised her that she could no longer work – that her condition had been worsened by her job activities and stress.

Standard reviewed medical records from Dr. Griffin and Dr. Slosky and Dr. Michael Deeken, Black’s psychiatrist. They also received an ‘attending physician statement’ from Dr. Griffin, stating that he had advised her to stop working as of 2003, and that she is unable to control her blood pressure. On visits to Dr. Slosky on August 2001, July 2002, and July 2003, records revealed that Black’s health was stable, with the exception of poorly controlled hypertension.

Dr. Slosky wrote a letter to the Standard Insurance Company, stating that that Black should cease working due to poor blood pressure control and the “potential for aneurysm enlargement/dissection.” Her psychologist, Dr. Deeken also submitted a statement that Mrs. Black had a diagnosis of depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Adding more evidence to her case, Mrs. Black submitted a copy of the Social Security Administration’s approval of her disability benefits. She had been considered disabled due to aortic disorders and anxiety disorders by the SSA, and was considered disabled by another disability insurance company, from which she had additional coverage.

Standard denied Mrs. Black’s claim for disability benefits, stating there was not enough evidence to consider her disabled under the plan. However, she appealed the denial, including additional letters from her doctors, who stated that Black had experienced fatigue and concentration problems. She also submitted letters from friends and family that had witnessed her concentration and memory problems. Standard then consulted four physicians, who took a look at Black’s medical records and evidence. Each of them concluded that Black was not disabled, while Dr. Fraback (one of the reviewing doctors) suggested Standard consult a cardiologist, which they did.

Two cardiologists – Drs. Kent Williamson and Storm Floten reviewed the charts. Dr. Williamson noted that while stress may reduce the risk of an aneurysm rupture, that Black’s condition could be managed with medication and that since her scans had not shown any significant change, there was no solid evidence that she was unable to work. Dr. Floten gave his opinion that Black’s aneurysm had not been affected by her job and that the “descending aorta has not enlarged significantly in the last three years.”

Both had concluded that she was not disabled. Dr. Gwinnell, a psychiatrist was consulted by Standard, who reviewed Black’s claim and stated that her complaints of fatigue and cognitive difficulties was not supported by her medical records. On January 2005, Black took the case to the district court, where she was ruled against. She appealed again to the United States Court of Appeals to the Seventh Circuit.

Black’s case was reviewed; specifically the fact that Standard denied Black while the SSA approved her. It was found that the medical information given to the SSA was not the same information given to Standard, and therefore, that Standard was not opposing the SSA, but that the cases were completely different. The court also found that the physician’s reports were conflicting and shifted to support Black’s disability claim. The court therefore supported the district court’s decision to rule for Standard.

*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

Annette Engel was employed with Harborcreek Youth Services as a Clinical Director, where she performed duties such as providing leadership and vision, developing proposals, overseeing interviews and recruits of other clinicians, consultation and more. On September 5, 2007, Mrs. Engel applied for long term disability benefits under her employer’s plan with Jefferson Pilot (aka Lincoln National), claiming fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, stress, and depression resulting from working long hours.

Mrs. Engel submitted her long-term disability claim with medical records from Dr. Brenda Stringer of the Fibromyalgia and Fatigue Centers, and Dr. Christie Ray,  Mrs. Engel’s primary care physician. The medical records included information on treatment for fatigue, headaches, stiffness and soreness, as well as inability to sleep, chronic fatigue, immune dysfunction syndrome, fibromyalgia, hyperthyroidism and depression. On September 9, 2007 Dr. Ray submitted an attending physician’s statement outlining the probable Fibromyalgia as well as stating that Mrs. Engel, “was unlikely to make a full recovery.”

On October 30, 2007, Jefferson Pilot Financial Insurance Company denied Mrs. Engle’s claim, stating, “The medical documentation contained in your claim file does not support disability as defined by this policy. You were diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, chronic pain, migraine headaches, and syncope. You had complaints of fatigue, poor sleep, pain and passing out. According to the medical records, on file your pain level as of 8/29/2007 was 3/10, and as of 8/22/2007 you were getting six hours of uninterrupted sleep. It was also indicated that you could lift up to 25 pounds. If you disagree with our decision, you may appeal this determination by following the steps outlined below.”

On December 3, 2007, Mrs. Engel appealed Jefferson Pilot’s denial, writing a letter that described in-depth her suffering – from short term memory problems, concentration problems and migraine headaches to severe depression and waking up without feeling rested. She also stated that Jefferson Pilot had misunderstood her doctor’s notes, because she had not experienced a 3/10 pain since the Fibromyalgia started. Her doctor confirmed this – stating that the patient’s pain was much higher than a 3/10. Mrs. Engel forwarded results from a mental evaluation as well, completed by Dr. Glenn Bailey on December 7, 2007 which stated the applicant's "claimed eligibility" was the result of "fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, migraines, [and] major depression."

On February 4, 2008, the medical records were reviewed by Jefferson Pilot’s RN Joyce Mumm, who claimed that there was not enough medical evidence in the records to support Mrs. Engle’s disability claim. The disability insurance company, on Mumm’s advice, denied Mrs. Engel’s claim once again. On April 10, 2008, Mrs. Engel appealed again, including additional medical support from Dr. Nossen Goldfarb of the Fibromyalgia treatment centers, stating, among other things, that “I can equivocally state that she is currently incapable of fulfilling these duties and clearly lacks the stamina to work on an ongoing full-time basis. Her constant state of pain, exhaustion and lack of mental clarity make these activities difficult if not impossible for her to perform.”

Updated medical records were sent to Jefferson Pilot, outlining more of the same problems as before, along with new evidence of a possible past Chlamydia infection and more. Jefferson Pilot referred the claim to a rheumatologist, Dr. Payne, who reviewed the case and found that there was not enough medical evidence to support disability. After a series of back and forth statements by reviewing doctors, Jefferson Pilot financial insurance company once again denied Mrs. Engel’s claim.

After two prior denials from Jefferson Pilot, Mrs. Engel filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. After hearing the evidence on both sides, Judge McLaughlin ruled, stating, “For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Defendant's rejection of benefits in this case was not a principled exercise of its discretion but was arbitrary and capricious.” Judge McLaughlin further stated, “Although Defendant requested a copy of the Plaintiff' job description, it did not give meaningful consideration as to how the Plaintiff's chronic fatigue, as well as memory and concentration problems, would impact upon her performance.”

The court also noted that Jefferson Pilot’s medical experts did not address Mrs. Engel’s physician’s repeated claims that she suffered from severe, chronic and debilitating memory and concentration problems, which would prevent her from performing her job or any job correctly.

*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

Walter Pettway was employed with ADP (NASDAQ: ADP), as a principal consultant, beginning in 1994.  Mr. Pettway’s job required him to travel the United States helping large corporations with computer processes.  In the 1970’s, Mr. Pettway had undergone a cervical fusion at the C6-7 level and at the C5-6 level in 1999.  In the summer of 2002, Mr. Pettway suffered a fall which aggravated his condition, so that he experienced issues with his neck, lower back, left arm, right and left leg weakness and numbness in his fingers.  In October 2002, Mr. Pettway began treating with and orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Ragab.

Mr. Pettway underwent a cervical discectomy and fusion from C3 to C5 with an allograft and placement of anterior instrumentation on January 21, 2003.  Because of continued finger numbness and neck pain, Mr. Pettway underwent another surgical procedure to remove the hardware on June 24, 2003.  Continued pain led Mr.Pettway’s orthopedic surgeon to suggest his pain and numbness was a result of scarring from past surgeries.

On January 20, 2003, Mr. Pettway applied for long-term disability benefits with Prudential as outlined in the plan he was part of with his workplace.  He claimed disability for the recent cervical issues, pain and numbness as well as a history of diabetes and high blood pressure. Submitted with the disability claim was a statement of Dr. Ragab, indicating that the patient had been diagnosed with cervical spondylosis and herniated nucleus pulposus.  Prudential initially approved Pettaway’s claim for disability benefits.

Disability benefits were received until December 1, 2003 because Prudential stated that Mr. Pettway was no longer qualified to receive them.  At this point with the policy, Mr. Pettway could only be considered disabled if he were not able to perform the duties of any job as opposed to only the duties of his job.  Along with an appeal on November 25, 2003 Mr. Pettway submitted a statement from Dr. Ragab on December 5, 2003, stating that Mr. Pettway was, “unable to perform the duties of any gainful occupation which he is reasonably fitted by education, training and experience.”

A Prudential-initiated independent medical exam by Dr. Thomas Cullom, a neurological surgery specialist, was scheduled on January 7, 2004.  Dr. Cullom concluded that Pettway was unable to perform the duties of his own current occupation.  Prudential reinstated benefits on January 22, 2004.  Multiple attempts to perform surveillance on Mr. Pettway happened between February 2004 and November 2007.  At one point, Prudential had video of a man they thought was Mr. Pettway.  However, it was proven not to be and those videos were disregarded.  There was one video of Mr. Pettway driving to a car rental location, placing two bags in the car and driving for an hour.

Another independent medical examination was scheduled with Dr. Jo Lynn Polk, on November 16, 2007.  After examining Pettway, reviewing his medical records, and watching the surveillance video of Mr. Pettway, Dr. Polk concluded that the patient’s, “self-reported functionality is not consistent with the activities noted on the surveillance.”

Other claims by Dr. Polk include, "(1) although he claims his left hand is weak, there was no atrophy of his left hand muscles; (2) although he says he has numbness in his left hand, there was only a slight sensory deficit which would impart minimal impaired function of the left hand; (3) although he says he can sit for only 30 minutes at a time, he sat on the examining room table for one hour during my interview; and (4) although he says he needs assistance standing and wiping himself after bowel movements, during my evaluation he demonstrated independence with standing after sitting and had adequate right shoulder internal rotation to wipe himself after bowel elimination."

As far as standing without assistance, Dr. Polk repeated only what a nurse relayed to her – these observations were not made firsthand.

Prudential had an in-house physician, Dr. Day, review Dr. Polk’s report and he concluded, “I would agree with the conclusion Dr. Polk noted that the claimant has sustainable work capacity at least at a sedentary level. There were several inconsistencies in the physical examination by Dr. Polk.”

In another appeal, Mr. Pettway submitted letters from three physicians (Dr. Ragab, Dr. Cullom and Dr. Bouldin), which disagreed with Prudential’s findings.  Prudential denied benefits and stated in a letter sent June 11, 2008 that Mr. Pettway has the functional ability to perform duties of jobs other than his own, which he is well-trained and qualified for.

In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Hattiesburg Division, it was found that Prudential completely ignored irrefutable evidence of Mr. Pettway’s condition by his treating physicians.  Instead they relied on Dr. Polk’s assessment, a physician who saw him for less than an hour.  The video evidence was disregarded, both because Prudential had been unsuccessful at surveying Mr. Pettway most of the time and had blundered in their attempts to do so and because nothing in the videos suggested that Mr. Pettway was able to perform the duties of any job with reasonably continuity.  Because of this, the court ordered Prudential to reinstate Mr. Pettway’s long term disability benefits.

*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

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 companies offer short and long-term disability insurance coverage to protect a portion of an employee’s monthly income in the event the employee is unable to work as a result of a sickness or injury. Employees pay the premiums for this insurance on a monthly basis so they’ll have something to fall back on if they ever become sick or injured. Of course, many individuals have a sense of security because of this. However, most employees are unaware that once a claim for disability benefits is submitted, the disability insurance company has a “structural conflict of interest”, as it is usually the long-term disability insurance company that both administers and pays any approved claim. This structural conflict is significant as a claim denial allows the insurance company to keep the money for itself and increase its profits. Fortunately for disability claimants, the courts are required to consider this structural conflict of interest as one of many potentially bias factors that inappropriately motivate a disability insurance company to deny disability benefits.

As a disability insurance attorney that has handled thousands of claims against every major disability insurance company, I am constantly trying to educate potential claimants about the tactics of disability insurers. A recent case is a victory for disability policyholders as it exposed the “signs of bias” exhibited by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company throughout its decision making process.

Disability Claim History

Robert Montour worked as a telecommunications manager for Conexant Systems for approximately 37 years. He was insured under Conexant’s group disability plan, which was funded and administered by Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company. In July 2003, Montour filed for disability due to acute stress disorder, and his claim was approved in January 2004 following the plan’s 180 day elimination period. In approximately June 2004, he began treating with an orthopedic surgeon and he was diagnosed with degenerative changes to his right knee and back. Montour underwent arthroscopic surgery on his right knee in October 2004. In September 2004, Montour notified Hartford of his physical disabilities. Montour completed psychotherapy treatment in April 2005 and his primary disabling condition was back pain which was documented by his orthopedic surgeon during appointments in April 2005, December 2005 and May 2006.

Montour’s orthopedic physician maintained that he was physically unable to work in any occupation because of back and knee pain and placed the following restrictions on his physical activities:
 

1) no sitting for more than 15-20 minutes at a time;
2) no prolonged walking;
3) no standing greater than 15 minutes at a time;
4) no lifting or carrying greater than 10 pounds;
5) no work at or above shoulder level;
6) no moderate pushing activities;
7) no moderate pulling activities; and
8) no driving greater than 30 minutes.

Hartford’s Calculated Plan to Deny Disability Benefits to Montour

Although Hartford had been paying Montour since January 2004, in November 2004 they began to orchestrate their plan in order to deny future disability benefits.

Stage 1: In November and December 2005, Hartford hires two private investigating companies to conduct video surveillance on Montour over the course of four nonconsecutive days. During the surveillance, he was observed making two twenty minute trips to pickup his grandchildren from school and one trip of about 2.5 hours conducting errands at various stores. He was also observed to be away from his home on two occasions for about an hour and forty minutes. During this time he was observed bending once at the waste and picking up a small bag of medication.

Stage 2: In March 2006, a Hartford investigator conducted a 4.5 hour personal interview with Montour at his home, during which time Montour reviewed Hartford’s video surveillance and explained why he cannot work. The investigator documents his observation of Montour and documented Montour’s complaints of pain during the interview.

Stage 3: In May 2006, a Hartford nurse case manager submitted letter’s to Montour’s treating orthopedic and primary care physician surmising that Montour was capable of performing “sedentary to light” work and soliciting their agreement. Montour’s orthopedic doctor returned the letter indicating that he disagreed with Hartford’s conclusions.

Stage 4: In July 2006, Hartford hired Dr. Brown, a consulting physician to conduct a file review of Montour’s medical records for the 2003-2006 period, including X-rays and MRIs of Montour’s back, pharmacy records, Hartford’s video surveillance and the personal interview report. Dr. Brown acknowledged that medical evidence supported Montour’s chronic pain but found that Montour nevertheless was capable of working full-time with modest restrictions, such as changing positions every thirty to forty-five minutes.

Stage 5: In July 2006, Hartford hired a vocation rehabilitation expert to complete an Employability Analysis Report, which evaluated Montour’s experience, qualifications, and the physical restrictions indentified by Dr. Brown. The expert concluded that Montour was capable of working in a high-level managerial capacity in five different fields.

Stage 6: In August 2006, Hartford terminates Montour’s benefits and advises him that he no longer meets the policies definition of disability.

Montour Takes Action Following His Denial of Disability Benefits

Following the denial of disability benefits, Montour’s disability plan required him to submit a written appeal to Hartford with any additional information that would further support his claim. Montour hired a vocational expert and submitted a vocational appraisal report stating that he was “not employable in any setting”. Furthermore, he submitted information showing that the Social Security Administration (SSA) considered him to be totally disabled. In response, Hartford once again hired a different consulting physician to review Montour’s records and the additional evidence submitted. The new Hartford doctor once again concluded that the activities depicted on the surveillance videos exceeded the activity requirements of a sedentary job and he could therefore perform a sedentary job. In February 2007, Hartford affirmed their previous decision to deny disability benefits.

In June 2007, Montour filed a lawsuit against Hartford in the California United States District Court seeking payment of his long-term disability benefits. In April 2008, the district court entered a judgment in favor of Hartford and concluded that although Hartford had a structural conflict of interest as both the administrator of the insurance policy and payor of benefits, it did not abuse its discretion in determining that Montour failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate disability within the meaning of the policy.

Following his defeat at the district court level, Montour submitted an appeal to the United Stated Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit. In September 2009, the appellate court reversed the district court decision and held that Montour is entitled to long-term disability benefits as Hartford abused its administrative discretion and was “improperly motivated” by its conflict of interest. The appellate court concluded that Hartford abused their discretion and wrongfully denied benefits for the following reasons:

1) Hartford overstated and over relies on the video surveillance of Montour;
2) Hartford’s nurse case manager took an advocacy position in her letter’ to Montour’s physicians soliciting their agreement with her lack of disability conclusion;
3) The doctors hired by Hartford failed to appropriately review the video surveillance;
4) Hartford failed to present evidence on its part to “assure accurate claims assessment” in order to ensure a neutral review process.
5) Hartford conducted a “pure paper” review rather than conduct an in-person medical evaluation of Montour;
6) Hartford failed to consider SSA’s determination of disability when it was Hartford that required Montour to apply for social security disability.

While Mr. Montour finally won his entitlement to disability benefits, it is an extreme injustice that he had to battle Hartford for more than three years without receiving payments. In many cases, the involvement of a disability insurance attorney from the initial submission of an application for benefits can prevent a disability insurance carrier from implementing and executing a calculated plan to deny disability benefits.

*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 worked with thousands of claimants on long-term disability cases. He can be reached at 888-SAY-Dell or gdell@diattorney.com.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since late 2004, our client, Sumiko Besser has been battling Prudential Insurance Company in an effort to secure her long-term disability benefits. Prudential currently owes her in excess of $900,000 in unpaid long-term disability benefits. Our client became disabled on May 10, 2004, as a result of chronic neck pain caused by multi-level degenerative disk disease. Attorneys Dell & Schaefer submitted two administrative appeals to Prudential and in early 2008 filed a lawsuit in United States District Court of Hawaii. On May 19, 2009, Attorneys Gregory Dell and Leonard Feuer presented our client’s case at trial and on July 14, 2009 the Federal Judge issued a 20 page opinion reversing Prudential’s denial of benefits. Motions are currently pending for calculations of past due disability benefits, interest, and attorney fees. A copy of the court’s opinion is available upon request.

At the time of filing for disability our client was working in Honolulu for Hilton Vacation International selling timeshares. Our client, a 47 year-old woman was at the prime of her sales professional career when she gave up her job due to chronic neck pain. Her pre-disability income and was in excess of $320,000. The time-share and real estate market was booming in mid 2004 when she was forced to stop working. Our client worked more than 60 hours per a week and was paid pure commission. As an employee benefit our client paid a monthly premium for a long-term disability policy that would pay her 60% of her monthly income each month if she became unable to perform the substantial and material duties of her occupation as a vacation sale professional. Prior to filing for disability, our client had been continuously treating with a Rehabilitation and Medicine doctor in order to help manage her pain. Additionally, she had undergone multiple cervical injections, was taking pain killers daily, missed multiple days from work, and attempted to reduce her hours in order to keep her job. Our client has seen more than 8 different doctors (orthopedics, neurosurgeons, physiatrist, and anesthesiologist) and has been recommended for neck surgery by 3 different doctors. All of these doctors support her inability to work due to chronic neck pain.

Prudential initially denied the claim on January 25, 2005 and relied on a paper review by one of their consulting doctors, who claimed that if she used a phone headset and an ergonomic chair to do her job she would have no problems. This Dr. never examined or spoke with our client. Our research revealed that Prudential paid this doctor more than $130,000 in 2005 and Prudential has a long-standing relationship with this doctor who practices at a medical school next to Prudential's NJ headquarters. On July 28, 2005 our firm submitted a 65 page single spaced appeal of the denial to Prudential with additional support for our client's claim. During the review of the first appeal, which was suppose to be completed in 45 days according to ERISA law, Prudential decided they wanted to have a doctor of their choice examine our client. This exam took place, December 16, 2005, which was now more than 1.5 years after our client’s claimed date of disability. We requested to video the exam of our client, as we usually do, and the Dr. hired by Prudential refused. The exam took place, and the doctor found that our client has objective evidence of a cervical degenerative condition; however it should not prevent her from doing any job. The doctor was suppose to determine if her medical condition would prevent her from doing her substantial and material duties as a vacation sales person, but he went as far as to say she had no restrictions preventing her from doing any job. While Prudential would not allow the video of the exam, Prudential hired a private investigation company to follow our client around with a video camera for 7 days. The first two days of video surveillance were the day before and the day of the exam with Prudential's hired doctor. The remaining days were within the following two weeks. Prudential paid $9,439.00 to the video surveillance investigators. Over 7 days, the investigators produced a total of 30 minutes of tape, of which more than 20 minutes was our clients visit to the beach on New Years Eve day with her family.

On February 13, 2006 Prudential entered their second denial and relied on the exam by the doctor they hired (paid him $5,000) and their own internal doctor’s report. On August 21, 2006, Attorneys Dell & Schaefer submitted a 100 page single spaced appeal letter to Prudential with additional information. ERISA law requires a policy holder to submit appeals and exhaust administrative remedies before the insured is allowed to file a lawsuit in Federal Court. Additionally, ERISA provides that an insured shall receive a full and fair review at each level of the appeal. The idea is that the Insurance Company will have different people review the claim at each level of the appeal. Unfortunately for our client, when she submitted her final appeal it was denied by the same Prudential Vice-President that made the decision to deny her first appeal submitted on July 28, 2005. Prudential treats large monthly benefits different than other claims and has a policy that any monthly benefit in excess of $10,000 must be approved by a Director or Vice President. The second and final appeal was denied on December 5, 2006 and Prudential relied on the video surveillance of our client at the beach on December 31, 2005 as the basis of their denial. Furthermore Prudential sent the video to the doctor they hired and he said that the video shows that our client could work for only as long as she seems to be functioning on the video. Keep in mind the video was 30 minutes long and our client worked a 60 hour week. Additionally, the video shows our client swimming for a total of 2 minutes and 30 second, and Prudential felt that if she could swim, then she can perform the duties of her 60 hour work week. In the July 2009 opinion, the court held that the video surveillance of our client was not representative of her ability to work as she had advised Prudential that she would like to go to beach on the weekends with her husband.

Following the second and final appeal denial a lawsuit was filed in Federal Court and Prudential has continued to fight the case every step of the way. Prudential denied our request to take depositions of 8 prudential company representatives and after an extensive motion the Judge granted the request. The depositions were taken and the information obtained was extremely helpful in presenting our client’s case at trial. Some individuals deposed at Prudential were the Vice President of Long-Term Disability, Director of Group Disability and Director of the Appeals Unit. During the pending lawsuit, Prudential challenged the standard of review to be used by the court claiming that the court did not have the discretion to review the entire Administrative Record and make a determination if our client is disabled. Prudential argued that that the disability policy granted them "discretion" and asked the court to apply an arbitrary and capricious standard, which means the court can only reverse the claim denial if the court finds that Prudential acted unreasonable. Our firm filed a motion to clarify the standard of review, which Prudential opposed, and the court agreed with our Client that Prudential does not have discretionary authority and the court must review the entire record De Novo.

Prior to Trial on May 19, extensive Trial and Reply Trial Briefs were filed with the court on behalf of our client. Prudential filed a motion recently claiming that ERISA does not allow our client to call live Dr. Testimony at trial. In accordance with ERISA, The judge granted Prudential's motion and said that the medical issues in this case do not rise to the level of complexity which requires additional medical testimony. ERISA law is very restrictive and does not provide a claimant with the right to a jury trial, therefore this case was decided by a Judge only.

Prudential will likely appeal and this case may go on for another 1.5 years. Currently she is owed disability benefits from November 6, 2004, in excess of $900,000 at a monthly benefit amount of approximately $16,000. Our client has been unable to work since the date of her accident. The attorney fees accrued to date are in excess of $500,000 and more than 1,000 hours of legal time have been spent on this case. The court has the discretion to award attorney fees if our client wins at trial. Our client is entitled to benefits until age 65 if she is disabled under the terms of the disability policy. After 2 years of disability the definition of disability changes to unable to perform any occupation that pays 60% of pre-indexed disability earnings within 12 months of her return to work. As of right now that would mean a job that pays our client $228,000. The total value, of our client’s policy, including benefits to age 65 is approximately 3 million dollars. ERISA does not allow punitive or bad faith damages against prudential for their wrongful denial of benefits.

Prudential has nothing to loose by denying our client's claim for long-term disability benefits, because if they are proved wrong, they end up having to pay what they should have paid 4.5 years ago. Prudential is able to hide behind the protections of ERISA, find a doctor to say our client can work, and then see if a court will make them pay a claim 5 years latter. In the meantime Prudential delays payment until the Appellate court tells them they must pay. Along the way, Prudential may make a low-ball offer after they have backed the claimant into a financial hole that leaves the claimant without the ability to fight anymore. All though our client won her case, the public should continue to be aware of the unreasonableness of ERISA law and the way in which companies such as Prudential manipulate the system to their advantage. The unreasonable actions of large disability insurance companies where they place their profits before the well being of those that bought disability contracts to protect themselves shall not be tolerated.

Attorneys Dell & Schaefer handle long term disability claims throughout the country and currently represent more than 200 hundred claimants against every major long-term disability insurance company. We have lawsuits pending against multiple disability carriers in multiple states. We welcome the opportunity to provide a free consultation regarding any long-term disability insurance claim.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks