On April 13, 2011, a Morgan Stanley employee and her California disability attorney filed a lawsuit against First UNUM Life Insurance Company for breach of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974(ERISA), after she was denied long term disability benefits.

On June 22, 2007, the claimant became disabled due to "a series of physical medical conditions, inter alia, a variant of Dejerine Roussy (Central Pain) Syndrome called central hypoperfusion syndrome, fibromyalgia, severe immunodeficiency, and server adrenal deficiency." Suffering from "chronic disabling pain of her right lower abdomen, whole body pain of muscles, joints and bones (including sensations of severe numbness and burning in her legs, face and neck, irritable bowel syndrome, dizziness and nausea, severe fatigue, severe migraine headaches, and chronic hormonal imbalances," the claimant takes powerful corticosteroids and other medications that cause side effects of cognitive difficulties, sleepiness, dizziness, fatigue and other symptoms that preclude her from performing her occupation as a Morgan Stanley Banking Associate.

Background of Banking Associate’s Disability Lawsuit against UNUM Life

Unable to perform "the substantial and material duties of her prior occupation as a Banking Associate," the claimant applied for long term disability benefits from UNUM, and was awarded those benefits on November 13, 2007. Approved for $5,000 per month in disability benefits, the claimant’s disability benefits were calculated incorrectly by taking into consideration only Sconiers’ base salary and failing "to calculate her basic monthly earnings as her HWEE defined as prior year annual gross W-2 earnings" as specified by the UNUM plan. In addition, without "conducting any reasonable or thorough investigation" and without having evidence supporting that the claimant’s condition had improved, UNUM terminated her disability benefits on March 24, 2010. The insurer asserted that the claimant "suffered from a mental condition" that had passed the disability plan’s 24-month limitation period and thus she "was no longer disabled under the terms of the Group Policy."

Disability Lawyer Goes to Battle for Claimant in California District Court

After filing several appeals to UNUM’s termination and miscalculation and being denied at every turn, the claimant and her disability attorney filed the subject lawsuit to obtain her entitled disability insurance benefits through litigation. Alleging that the insurer violated ERISA (the Employee Retirements Insurance Security Act of 1974), California law, and its fiduciary duty in respect to the management of her Stanley Morgan disability insurance plan, the claimant and her California disability attorney accuse the insurer of:

  • Denying benefits based upon an incorrect interpretation of total disability as defined in the plan;
  • Obtaining biased medical input constituting a conflict of interest;
  • Miscalculating the disability benefits the insurer did pay to the claimant; and
  • Improperly "interpreting disabling medical conditions as mental illnesses or psychological conditions."

The claimant and her disability attorney, in her complaint, ask the District Court to permanently enjoin UNUM from "ever again serving as a fiduciary with respect to the Plan," award the claimant attorney’s fees and costs, provide the claimant with appropriate equitable relief from UNUM and issue an order awarding the claimant the "full amount of benefits due since November 13, 2007," plus interest and "other losses resulting from UNUM’s breach."

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston was recently sued by three separate Plaintiffs for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations in Michigan Federal Courts. In all three cases filed by Michigan disability attorneys, Liberty is alleged of wrongfully denying the claims of all Plaintiffs for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The First Case

Amy W. was employed by Chico’s FAS, Inc. as a Purchasing Assistant, thereby making her eligible for its long-term disability plan, which was covered by Liberty.

Plaintiff ceased working on April 15, 2008 due to her degenerative and traumatic injuries. To the current date, Plaintiff suffers from narcolepsy, fibromyalgia, depression, and anxiety. Plaintiff filed for short-term disability benefits, which were granted by Liberty.

Plaintiff filed for long-term disability benefits through the Plan. On October 16, 2008, Liberty denied Plaintiff’s request for LTD benefits under the Plan and informed Plaintiff she had 180 days to appeal this decision.

On April 13, 2009, Plaintiff requested administrative review of the denial of benefits as she was entitled to under the Plan. Plaintiff submitted administrative appeal to Liberty and included additional documentation and medical records detailing her total disability that prevented her from working at her own occupation or at any other occupation according to the terms of the Plan. Plaintiff also included documentation of the fully favorable decision of total disability as deemed by the Social Security Administration.

On July 8, 2009, Liberty again denied Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits. Plaintiff filed a second appeal on February 5, 2010 and added additional documentation and medical records to further prove her claim for LTD benefits under the Plan. Liberty issued its final denial on March 31, 2010.

Due to exhausting her administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, claiming that Liberty did not properly evaluate the evidence presented to it regarding Plaintiff’s condition, is interpreting the terms of the plan for total disability in an unreasonable manner, and has not fulfilled its contractual obligation to furnish the promised benefits under the Plan.

The Second Case

Amy S. was a Customer Service Representative for Advance America Cash Advance Center, making her eligible for the long-term disability Plan that was insured by Liberty.

Due to degenerative and traumatic injuries that caused seizure-like episodes, Plaintiff ceased work on September 3, 2008. Plaintiff filed for short-term disability benefits, which were granted by Liberty. Plaintiff applied for long-term disability benefits through the Plan, but was denied by Liberty on December 4, 2008. Plaintiff was informed that she had 180 days to appeal this decision.

Plaintiff requested administrative review of the denial of benefits on July 11, 2009. She sent a letter to Liberty that included additional information and medical records to substantiate her claim that she is totally disabled under the terms of the Plan, preventing her from working at her own occupation or from any other occupation. Liberty denied Plaintiff’s appeal on March 3, 2010.

Plaintiff filed a second appeal on August 30, 2010, which included additional information and medical records to substantiate her claim that she is totally disabled. Liberty issued its final denial on October 8, 2010.

Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies, which has led to the filing of this lawsuit. Plaintiff claims that Liberty failed to properly evaluate the evidence presented to it regarding Plaintiff’s condition, did not interpret the terms of the plan for total disability in a reasonable manner, and did not fulfill its contractual obligation to furnish the promised benefits under the Plan.

The Third Case

Allyse F. has been an employee of PNC Financial Services Group since 2004. This made her eligible for the disability benefits package that was insured by Liberty.

Due to a serious motor vehicle accident on July 12, 2008, Plaintiff has not worked since December 2008. Plaintiff is totally disabled and unable to work due to ongoing problems with depression and physical and emotional symptoms caused by the accident, as supported by her psychologisti. This prognosis was also supported by Plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon at the University of Michigan, as well as by the Plaintiff’s primary care physician, who also believes that the Plaintiff will be on disability for at least the next three years.

Liberty stopped Plaintiff’s benefits in August 2010, recklessly disregarding the opinions of the Plaintiff’s treating physicians. Due to the exhaustion of administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit, claiming that Liberty is in violation of the LTD benefits contract.

Relief Sought in the Lawsuits

In the three aforementioned cases, the Plaintiffs seek the following relief from Liberty in their lawsuits:

  • A judgment that the Plaintiffs are to be immediately reinstated to their respective LTD Plans, with all short-term and long-term benefits that should have been paid, along with accrued interest.
  • A judgment that the Plaintiffs are entitled to all future long-term benefits as listed in the respective LTD plans as long as they are considered totally disabled under the terms of their respective Plans.
  • Complete reimbursement of all attorney fees and costs.
  • Any other relief that the court considers to be just and proper.

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Radio personality files lawsuit against UNUM to recover disability benefits

A Radio Station employee and her Montana disability lawyer filed a lawsuit against UNUM Group in Montana Federal Court alleging that the insurer violated the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) when it wrongfully denied her entitled disability benefits per a policy she had with her employer, KMSO Radio.

Disability Blog & Cases:
CIGNA/LINA sued by Lockheed Martin employee for unpaid disability benefits

A lawsuit was filed August 1, 2011 in the Federal Court of New Jersey against CIGNA by a hardware analyst and her New Jersey disability attorney in an effort to procure the employee’s disability benefits. After suffering from melanoma of the uterus and courageous attempts to continue working, the claimant was unable to and filed for long term disability benefits. When CIGNA denied those benefits, the claimant was forced to hire an attorney and sue.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Liberty Life faces disability benefit lawsuits in Florida and Maryland for denying disability benefits

Four individuals, include two Comcast employees, with the help of their disability attorneys have filed Federal Lawsuits against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston for failing to pay long term disability benefits. Let’s take a closer look at each case.

A federal lawsuit was recently filed by a Florida disability attorney against the Berkshire Life to recover monthly disability benefit payments wrongly withheld. As a Senior Strategic Accounts Manager for Walgreen’s, Inc., George F., was covered by Berkshire’s monthly disability benefit plan.

The Facts of the Case Against Berkshire Life Insurance Company Of North America

The plaintiff, George F., suffers from multiple medical conditions and symptoms, including herniated disk, radiculitis, spondylosis, spinal stenosis, intractable radiculopathy, and L5-S1 retrolisthesis. Plaintiff has undergone diskectomy, foraminotomy, and L5-S1 facetectomy due to these conditions and symptoms.

Due to these conditions, Plaintiff attempted to work in a reduced capacity from July 27, 2009 to September 30, 2009, but ceased working on September 30, 2009 due to being unable to work in a reduced capacity.

In accordance with the procedures set forth in the Plan and fitting the terms of the “Total Disability” provision in the Plan, Plaintiff filed an Individual Disability Claims Notice of Claim Form to Berkshire on January 20, 2011.

Delay of Berkshire Disability Benefits Claim

Berkshire has not yet made a determination in regards to Plaintiff’s disability claim. According to the Plan, Plaintiff may bring legal action against Berkshire within 60 days after a submittal of proof of loss, as Plaintiff has done.

Plaintiff also added an Attending Physician Statement in his submittal to Berkshire on May 24, 2011. An Orthopedic Surgeon informed Berkshire that he was restricting Plaintiff’s workload, including not lifting objects that weighed more than five to eight pounds. The doctor also stated that Plaintiff was a likely candidate for additional surgery in the future to correct his spinal ailments. All of this further aids the claim that Plaintiff meets the definition of “Total Disability” as defined in the Plan.

Berkshire’s failure to reach a decision in a timely and reasonable manner regarding the Plaintiff’s claim violates the terms of the Plan and Florida law. As a result, Plaintiff has retained an attorney and has filed this lawsuit.

Florida Disability Lawyer Files Lawsuit Against Berkshire

According to the lawsuit, Berkshire is alleged to have failed to provide the following to the plaintiff:

  • Monthly disability payments as defined by the Plan, along with interest, through age 65
  • Honor its obligations as defined by the Plan
  • Comply with the terms of the Plan

Relief Sought By The Plaintiff In The Berkshire Lawsuit

Due to Berkshire’s actions, Plaintiff wants the following relief from the Court:

  • A jury trial on all issues that are deemed to be triable
  • All contractual benefits and pre-judgment interest
  • All premiums since the date of Plaintiff’s disability
  • All court costs
  • All attorney’s fees
  • All further relief that the Court deems to be proper and just

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Liberty Mutual must consider disability appeal submitted 2.5 years after denial

A Massachusetts Federal District Court recently entered a very favorable opinion for disability insurance claimants. This case against Liberty Mutual is very fact specific so it does not abolish the 180 day ERISA regulation requirement to submit an appeal in 180 days. This case is an example of how important it is to make sure your disability insurance company is complying with the terms of a disability policy. Disability insurance companies cannot make up their own rules.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Five lawsuits recently filed in Florida Courts against Prudential for non-payment of disability benefits to deserving claimants

With at least five suits filed against them in July, Prudential Insurance Company of America has a lot of unhappy claimants in Florida. Florida Disability Attorneys recently filed Five Lawsuits against Prudential for the denial of long term disability benefits. Let’s take a closer look at each case.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Microsoft employee denied disability benefits by Prudential

A Microsoft account representative and her California disability lawyer filed suit against Prudential Insurance and Tanaka’s employer under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) on August 1, 2011 in an effort to get a Federal Court to order the insurer to pay her entitled disability benefits. The Employee became disabled in March 2006 due to the worsening of her fibromyalgia condition which included symptoms of pain, fatigue and cognitive dysfunction. Initially approved for receipt of her disability benefits in May 2007 retroactive to September 13, 2006, Tanaka thought she was set for continuing disability benefits per the terms of her employee Prudential policy.

Disability Blog & Cases:
CIGNA denies disability claim and gets sued by neurologist

A complaint recently filed in Pennsylvania Federal Court by a Pennsylvania disability attorney against CIGNA and Life Insurance Company of North America petitions the Court to provide denied long term disability benefits.

An Illinois disability attorney recently filed a federal lawsuit against the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America. The plaintiff had contracted with Guardian Life to provide disability income insurance. Plaintiff filed a disability lawsuit to recover disability benefits that were wrongfully withheld by Guardian.

The Facts of the Case Against Guardian Life Insurance Company Of America

"Total Disability" in the Plan is defined by the following:

"Due to sickness or injury, you are not able to perform the major duties of your occupation."

Plaintiff became disabled in December 2009, suffering a severe shoulder injury that required surgery. This has restricted him from performing the physical duties that he performed before the injury occurred.

Plaintiff sent a timely application for benefits and submitted proof of loss, including a certification of his disability by an attending physician. Other documentation that was requested by Guardian was also provided.

Guardian was to provide monthly disability income benefit payments to Plaintiff if he ever became disabled. The monthly payments were to be for $2,160, plus the cost of living benefits in the event of Total Disability. This policy has been in effect since May 22, 1989 and continues to remain in full force and effect due to all of the premiums being paid on time.

Denial of Guardian Disability Benefits Claim

Despite the submission of the materials above, Guardian continued to ask for additional documentation and failed to approve Plaintiff’s claim as of July 25, 2011.

Disability Lawyer Files Lawsuit Against Guardian

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff claims the following:

  • Guardian is in breach of the contract of insurance
  • Guardian owes Plaintiff total disability payments under Policy No. G509736-4, corresponding to 3 months after the date of loss
  • Guardian also owes for cost of living adjustments since that time
  • A declaratory judgment should be granted that declares Plaintiff is entitled to monthly benefits as long as Plaintiff continues to meet the terms and conditions of the insurance policy

Relief Sought By Plaintiff In Guardian Lawsuit

Due to Guardian’s actions, Plaintiff asks for the following from the Court:

  • All benefits owed to the Plaintiff, along with accrued interest
  • Declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to all future benefits so long as Plaintiff meets the standard for being totally disabled in the Plan
  • All other relief that the Court finds just and proper 

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Microsoft employee forced to sue Prudential for denial of ERISA disability benefits

Forced to hire a Washington disability lawyer to represent him in United States District Court to file an ERISA lawsuit against Prudential Insurance, a Software Design Test Engineer and his attorney allege that the insurer breached its contract, violated the consumer Protection Act, acted in bad faith, and was negligent in denying him ERISA long-term disability benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Two Yellow Book employees sue Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston for failing to pay ERISA disability benefits

Two different lawsuits were recently filed in California and Alabama Federal Court under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. In both cases, it is alleged that Liberty improperly denied both plaintiffs their claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
General surgeon files lawsuit against Provident Life and UNUM for disability benefits award

Having failed to uphold its obligation to provide disability benefits to one Provident Life and Accident/UNUM policyholder, the insurer now finds itself in litigation to solve the matter. A General Surgeon and his Florida disability attorney filed a complaint on July 11, 2011 in an effort to pursue the disability benefits he is entitled to under his UNUM insurance plan.

Recently, two different lawsuits were filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against the Principal Insurance Company of America. In both cases filed through the respective plaintiffs’ disability attorney, Principal was alleged to have wrongfully denied the respective plaintiffs their claims for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

The First Case

The plaintiff through a California disability attorney filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court. The plaintiff was employed as a general partner in an executive search firm, Vantage Partners. This occupation required high levels of energy, concentration, and intellect to perform successfully. While working for Vantage Partners, the plaintiff participated in a disability insurance plan provided by Principal. Principal was the plan administrator for the disability insurance plan.

In 2003, Plaintiff became sensitive to several forms of technology, including cellphones, that resulted in cognitive and physical symptoms, including memory loss, numbness, and pain. He continued working, but the symptoms gradually became worse over time between 2003 and March 2008.

The pains intensified to the point where Plaintiff had heart pain, sleep disturbances, and lack of concentration. His physician diagnosed him with fibromyalgia, which the Plaintiff had suffered from years earlier.

By this time, Plaintiff’s business productivity had declined because of having to reduce his workday by several hours per day and reducing the number of client field visits. He also required more frequent breaks, as well as developed blurred vision from staring at a computer screen. Plaintiff’ mental awareness continued to decline.

Despite this, in May 2008, Plaintiff decided to try to work full time again. This only lasted until October 2008, when his medical condition caused him to reduce his workload to part-time status. His symptoms continued to grow more intense.

In November 2008, he submitted a claim for benefits under the terms of the Policy continuously from October 2008 to the present. His condition will likely continue beyond the age 65 policy anniversary. Plaintiff has continually provided the Defendants with sufficient proof of his loss and his necessary medical and financial documentation of his right to benefits.

Principal did not decide on Plaintiff’s claim until July 14, 2009, taking the time to conduct an investigation to find any reason to deny the Plaintiff of his benefits. This included three separate instances of surveillance on the Plaintiff, with no legitimate cause to conduct surveillance on him to begin with. Additionally, it also requested a paper medical review from a company that has a reputation for finding claimants not disabled. Principal also required the Plaintiff to undergo an examination with a doctor who had no expertise in treating and evaluating patients with exposure to electromagnetic fields.

Principal paid partial disability benefits for the period of October 3, 2008 until May 12, 2009, but denied the Plaintiff’s claim for the period thereafter. In the lawsuit, Plaintiff claims Defendants ignored the evidence presented to them that proves Plaintiff’s condition, misrepresented facts about the Plaintiff’s condition, and have taken actions to deny paying the benefits called for in the terms of the Plan.

The Second Case

In the second case, an employee of Old Hickory Furniture Co., with the help of an Indiana disability lawyer, filed an ERISA lawsuit against Principal Life Insurance Company. He was provided with a LTD coverage plan that was fully insured by Principal. At the same time, Principal was also the Claims Adjudicator for the plan. In this case, it was alleged that Principal did not have a principled and reasoned decision making process for denying the plaintiff’s claim for LTD benefits, but was instead influenced by its inherent conflict of interest as a fiduciary, payer, and claims adjudicator of the Plan.

Relief Sought in the Lawsuits

In both of the cases mentioned above, the relief sought by the Plaintiffs from Principal in their lawsuits comprises of:

  • A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to LTD benefits under their respective plans
  • Benefits that have not been paid to be paid, along with interest
  • Reimbursement for attorney fees and costs
  • All other relief that the court deems proper and just 

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.

FAQ – General Questions:
Will a disability insurance company watch me on Facebook or other social media sites?

In this video Nationwide Disability Insurance Attorney Gregory Dell discusses the precautions that all disability insurance claimants using Facebook should consider.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Employees of Boeing and Bank of America sue Aetna for denying disability benefits under ERISA regulations

Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) was recently sued three times in the Federal District Court of South Carolina by three separate Plaintiffs for short-term and/or long-term disability benefits violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In each of the three cases filed by South Carolina disability attorneys, Aetna is accused of illegally denying the Plaintiffs’ claims for short-term disability (STD) and/or long-term disability (LTD) benefits as promised under their respective plans.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Panasonic and Microsoft employees sue Prudential in Tennessee and Indiana for denying their disability claims

Two Plaintiffs filed Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits against the Prudential Insurance Company of America in Tennessee and Indiana Federal Court. In both cases it is alleged that Prudential wrongfully denied the claims of both Plaintiffs for long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Wyeth Pharmaceutical/Pfizer Senior Attorney suffering from disability sues Ohio National Life Insurance Company for denial of disability benefits

A Pennsylvania disability attorney recently filed a federal lawsuit against The Ohio National Life Insurance Company. The Plaintiff worked as a Senior Attorney in the Wyeth Pharmaceutical (now Pfizer) Global Business Development Legal Group. Plaintiff purchased a Disability Insurance Policy from Ohio National on May 14, 1999, then purchased another Disability Insurance Policy from Ohio National on September 24, 1999.

A South Carolina disability attorney recently filed a federal ERISA lawsuit against the Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston. The plaintiff was employed by Michelin North America, Inc., who contracted with Defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston d/b/a Liberty Mutual to provide long-term disability benefits to its employees. By virtue of his employment, Plaintiff was covered by Michelin’s Long-Term Disability Group Policy.

The Plaintiff was forced to file a disability lawsuit under the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) to recover long-term disability benefits that were wrongfully withheld by Liberty.

The Facts of the Case Against Liberty Insurance Company

Plaintiff is a United Kingdom citizen and is a resident alien of the State of South Carolina, residing in Greenville County.

In October 2005, Plaintiff began receiving medical treatment for Chronic Bi-Polar Disorder (Bi-Polar I) and Depression. His condition worsened to the point where he could no longer work as a engineer project/process manager for Michelin. He was placed on Short-Term Disability and began receiving his short-term disability benefits from Liberty on November 17, 2008.

On or about May 20, 2009, Plaintiff was placed on Long-Term Disability and received those benefits from Liberty. His condition worsened to the point in November 2009 where he had to cease his employment with Michelin after nearly 38 years of employment.

On December 27, 2009, Plaintiff’s wife of 30 years died from breast cancer that turned into liver cancer, which deepened Plaintiff’s depression. This continued a trend of his condition worsening to the point that he had much difficulty doing the simplest day-to-day tasks, such as paying the bills, maintaining his home, and caring for himself. This led to Plaintiff being hospitalized and receiving pharmaceutical treatment for his Bi-Polar Disorder and Depression.

Plaintiff is unable to recover to the point where he will be able to work in any sort of fulltime employment, as he continually deals with episodes of disorientation and memory loss, making the completion of daily tasks impossible.

On or about September 5, 2010, Plaintiff experienced a Grand Mal Seizure, which led to his hospitalization. He experienced another such seizure on November 19, 2010, resulting in 3 weeks of hospitalization in intensive care at the Carolina Center in Greenville County.

Denial of Liberty Disability Benefits Claim

Despite the facts mentioned above, on or about May 19, 2010, Liberty informed Plaintiff that he no longer met the Policy’s definition of disability, his benefit payments would stop on May 19, 2011, and his LTD claim would be closed as of May 20, 2011.

Plaintiff requested a review of Liberty’s decision to deny his LTD claim.

Despite the fact that Plaintiff was 58-years-old, unlikely to be trained for a new career that would provide enough income for him to live, and to even struggle with handling day-to-day-affairs, Liberty upheld its denial of Plaintiff’s LTD claim on or about August 11, 2010.

South Carolina Disability Lawyer Files Lawsuit Against Liberty

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Liberty did the following to the Plaintiff:

  • In bad faith, arbitrarily, maliciously, wrongfully, and without due cause deny the Plaintiff his claim for LTD benefits.
  • Failed to thoroughly and adequately review Plaintiff’s medical history and records, ignoring Plaintiff’s seizures, and disregarded Plaintiff’s physicians’ opinions on Plaintiff’s inability to resume employment and handle simple day-to-day tasks.
  • Liberty’s actions and omissions in investigating, reviewing and deciding Mr. Robinson’s LTD claim were unreasonable, improper, and in bad faith.
  • Liberty violated terms of the LTD benefit plan between it and the Plaintiff.
  • Caused actual and consequential damages to the Plaintiff, both now and in the future, including attorney’s fees and costs, as well as other damages.

Relief Sought By The Plaintiff In The Liberty Lawsuit

Due to Liberty’s actions, Plaintiff seeks the following from the Court:

  • A trial by jury.
  • An award of full coverage under the LTD benefit plan retroactive to May 19, 2010, including any prejudgment interest that the Court may deem appropriate.
  • An award for actual and compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest, and appropriate punitive damages.
  • An award of attorney’s fees and costs for bringing this lawsuit to the Court.
  • An award of all other relief that the Court deems proper and just. 

About the author: Gregory Michael Dell is an attorney and managing partner of the disability income division of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer. Mr. Dell and his team of lawyers have assisted thousands of long-term disability claimants with their claims against every major disability insurance company. To request a free legal consultation call 800-411-9085.