On August 24, 2011, a pre-screener for the Detroit Area Agency on Aging (DAAA) and her disability lawyer filed a lawsuit against Prudential Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. According to their complaint, Della Davis and her Wisconsin disability lawyer allege that the insurer owes Davis:

  • An acknowledgment of her disabled condition;
  • Damages for losses of her benefits pursuant to her disability insurance plan with Prudential and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA);
  • Reimbursement for costs, disbursements, prejudgment interest, actual attorney’s fees and expert witness fees incurred in the prosecution of her claim; and
  • Any other relief the Court "deems just and equitable."

Claimant Designated as Disabled by SSA

An employee covered by an employee insurance policy administered by Prudential for her employer the Detroit Area Agency on Aging, Davis worked at the DAAA from 2001 through 2006 when she succumbed to her medical conditions, ceased working and applied for her Prudential disability benefits. With years of documentation of her various ailments, Davis was awarded her claim. Initially receiving her entitled disability benefits, Davis was declared disabled by the Social Security Administration and awarded Social Security Income Disability Benefits (SSDB) retroactive until September 2006. Prudential, promptly, required Davis to repay the $1,310.28 in over-payment of benefits to correlate with her SSDB, which she complied with.

Filing of Lawsuit against Prudential in United States District Court of Wisconsin

Then, shortly afterward the SSDB award and over-payment notification, Prudential scheduled Davis to participate in an Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) in which the evaluating doctor stated that "there were no objective findings to support [Davis’] inability to perform activities." With reams and reams of medical documentation, doctor’s letters, proof of surgery, and therapy, Davis found herself without disability benefits and without a premium life insurance waiver from Prudential when the insurer discontinued her disability benefits payments. Diagnosed with and treated for "cervical radiculopathjy, cervicalgia, herniated disks, degenerative disc disease, spondylosis and osteoarthritis, forminal stenosis, chronic thoracolumbar strain, degenerative changes in the lumbosacral spin, fibromyalgia, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (‘CTS’), right shoulder pain with impingement syndrome, deltoid atrophy, arthritis of the left knee, sleep apnea, chronic fatigue syndrome, vertigo/imbalance disorder, and thoracic outlet syndrome," Davis had no other option but to file a lawsuit against Prudential to attempt to retrieve her disability benefits.

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.

A California disability lawyer has recently filed a federal lawsuit in a district court in California against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Life). The Plaintiff, Kimberly S., worked as a registered nurse at the University of California at Davis (UC Davis). Being employed by UC Davis, Plaintiff was covered by its Supplemental Disability Insurance Plan, which was funded and administered by Liberty Life.

In Kimberly S. v. Liberty Life Assurance Company Of Boston, Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit to regain the benefits that were abruptly and wrongly terminated by Liberty Life.

Case Facts Against Liberty Life

Plaintiff worked as a registered nurse at the University of California at Davis until on or around September 29, 2009, when Plaintiff suffered a loss compensable under the terms of the Plan. Due to physical sickness, she was unable to perform the material and substantial duties of a registered nurse, requiring her to take a disability leave. Plaintiff submitted a long-term disability claim to Liberty Life, which was approved and began taking effect on September 29, 2009.

Termination of Long-Term Disability Benefits By Liberty Life

Effective September 28, 2011, Liberty Life wrongfully terminated Plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. Liberty Life claims this was due to its conclusion that Plaintiff’s disability was due to a mental condition, making the payment of benefits subject to 24-month benefit limitation period.

Lawsuit Filed Against Liberty Life By California Disability Lawyer

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims that Liberty Life committed the following wrongful actions against the Plaintiff:

  • Improperly concluded that Plaintiff’s disability was caused by a mental condition, not due to physical sickness
  • Denied benefits that Plaintiff was entitled to under the terms of the Plan
  • Plaintiff has suffered contractual damages under the terms and conditions of the Plan, and will continue to do so, as Liberty Life has not changed its position
  • Plaintiff will suffer additional financial damage due to the loss of accumulated interest from unpaid benefits, other incidental damages, and out-of-pocket expenses
  • Not providing Plaintiff with a prompt and reasonable explanation of the basis why it denied Plaintiff benefits despite medical evidence submitted to Liberty Life
  • Unreasonably delaying payments to Plaintiff in bad faith when Liberty Life knows that Plaintiff’s claim for benefits is valid under the terms of the Plan
  • Failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits
  • Applying the Policy terms in such a way as to limit the amount of financial exposure and contractual obligations that Liberty Life would be responsible for to the Plaintiff, thereby increasing its own profits in the process
  • Forcing Plaintiff to file this lawsuit in order to obtain the benefits that are rightfully hers under the terms of the Plan

Plaintiff Seeks Following Relief From Liberty Life Via Court Ruling

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

  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay for full benefits that have not been paid, including accrued interest. This amount will be more than $3,000.00 per month
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay all future interest so long as the Plaintiff meets the definition of disability as defined in the terms of the Plan
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay for general damages stemming from mental and emotional distress. This amount will be in the sum of $1,000,000.00
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of over $5,000,000.00
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay triple the amount of punitive damages
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay all reasonable attorneys’ fees related to this lawsuit
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life to pay all associated court costs
  • A judgment that requires Liberty Life all other relief that the Court decides to be fair 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:
Northwestern Mutual sued by shareholder attorney for underpaying and denying long-term disability benefits

A Washington disability attorney filed a federal lawsuit in the District Court serving the Western District Court of Washington at Seattle against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (Northwestern). The Plaintiff, Scott D., worked as a shareholder attorney at a law firm in the state of Washington. Plaintiff was covered under a long-term disability policy purchased from Northwestern, who was contracted by the law firm to provide these benefits to its employees.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Bank of America, Boeing, and Cytec Industries employees file lawsuits against Aetna Life Insurance Company over disability benefits

Recently, three separate ERISA actions were filed against Aetna in Federal Court for wrongfully denying disability benefits to those covered under Aetna Long Term Disability Policies. Lets take a closer look at each of these cases.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Dental surgeon sues Paul Revere Life Insurance Company for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits

A California disability lawyer filed a federal lawsuit in Federal Court against The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (Paul Revere). The Plaintiff, Eric W., DDS, was employed as a dental surgeon and took out an individual long-term disability coverage policy by Paul Revere. The Plaintiff had paid all premiums on time, making him eligible for all benefits covered by the terms of the policy.

In Maryland Federal Court, a four-year employee (working as a receiver) at Weis Markets, Inc. ceased working in October 2009 due to cervical surgery that she had to undergo for repair of injuries she sustained in a car accident in October 2008. After being denied long term disability benefits by Guardian, she was forced to hire a Maryland disability attorney and file suit.

Suffering from occipital headaches, neck pain, stiffness, and radiation in her arms, the claimant was diagnosed with cervical radiculopathy that required surgery for a "cervical fusion and decompression of C5-C6 with replacement o instrumentation," which left her with a "30% permanent partial impairment of her neck."

Denied Long Term Disability Benefits

Not eligible for short term disability benefits, the claimant applied to Guardian Life Insurance Company of America for her long term disability benefits as provided by her employee plan with Weis Markets, Inc. In a letter dated June 18, 2010, Guardian Life denied the claimant her long term disability benefits, after it concluded that the claimant was capable of performing her "prior job duties," which included the "ability to life a heavy garage door." The claimant appealed the insurer’s decision, sent additional documents in support of her inability to work at her previous job, and was again denied her Guardian Life disability benefits. On June 21, 2011, the claimant received her final denial from Guardian Life, in which the insurer upheld its original decision, forcing the claimant to hire a disability lawyer to file a lawsuit to try to collect on the disability benefits she is entitled to through her employee disability plan.

Lawyer Appeals to Maryland District Court for Relief

Claiming that Guardian failed to "conduct a full and fair review and that the decision to deny disability benefits to the claimant was unreasonable and not supported by substantial evidence" for the denial of her benefits, the claimant and her lawyer filed suit in District Court on August 17, 2011. In the complaint, the claimant and her lawyer ask the Court for the following relief:

  • Payment to the claimant of all long term disability benefits due under her Guardian plan from June 1, 2010 to the present and continuing;
  • Judgment against Guardian for "all amounts due and owing" on the claimant’s disability benefits;
  • Attorney’s fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132; and
  • "Any and all other relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled or the nature of this cause of action may require."

Maryland District Court will Decide if The claimant is Disabled or Not

The issue in this suit revolves around the question as to whether or not she meets the definition of disabled per her employee insurance policy. The claimant and her attorney are confident that she does meet the criteria as she cannot lift the heavy garage door that is a duty under her employment requirements. Consequently, they claim that her lawsuit has substantial evidence that Guardian has not conducted a full and fair review of her claim and that the insurer unreasonably denied her claim as a result of that failure. The claimant and her disability attorney allege that Guardian has breached her contract with her by not providing her disability benefits as promised, and that the insurer’s denial of her disability benefits is "arbitrary, illegal, capricious, unreasonable, discriminatory and not made in good faith." 

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:
Registered nurse at Temple University Hospital denied disability benefits, sues Cigna

A Pennsylvania disability attorney recently filed a lawsuit in District Court of Pennsylvania against Cigna. The Plaintiff, Jamy V., was employed as a registered nurse for Temple University Health Systems (TUHS) through April 1, 2006. Due to her employment with TUHS, Plaintiff was covered by TUHS’s Group Long-Term Disability Plan. This plan was administered by Cigna.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Employees of Wells Fargo, Heinz, and Otis Elevator sue Liberty Life for denial of ERISA benefits

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty) was sued by three Plaintiffs in District Courts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and California for failure to provide disability benefits as promised by ERISA. In all three cases that were filed via the Plaintiffs’ respective attorneys, Liberty is accused of wrongfully denying the claims of all three Plaintiffs for long-term disability benefits as promised under their respective plans.

Disability Blog & Cases:
CIGNA has three new lawsuits to deal with for unpaid disability benefits

Three recent ERISA complaints were filed against CIGNA in Kentucky, New York and Texas for denying short-term and long-term disability benefits. In each of the cases, with the assistance of a disability attorney, the claimants are suing for claims that were allegedly wrongfully denied. Lets take a look at each case:

Finding itself named as the defendant in multiple lawsuits throughout the United States this summer, Aetna Life Insurance has a lot of denied and terminated long term disability benefit claims to answer for in District Courts.

Case 1: Aetna Life Lawsuit in Georgia

Donald W. and his Georgia disability attorney filed a lawsuit in the United State District Court Southern District of Georgia Augusta Division on August 8, 20011 under ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) in an effort to recover Donald W.’s disability benefits he is entitled to pursuant to his ADP Total Source, Inc. disability plan. An employee of ADP Total Source, Inc., Donald W. purchased long term disability group insurance from his employer that was underwritten by Aetna. The plan stipulated that Donald W. would be paid his disability benefits after twenty-four (24) months of his qualification of such benefits provided: "(1) he was unable to perform the material duties of his own occupation solely because of disease or injury; and, (2) that his work earnings were 80% or less of his adjusted pre-disability earnings."

As the result of a pre-existing back condition, Donald W., a heavy duty diesel mechanic, was unable to work at any reasonable occupation and was declared disabled on February 1, 2010. Upon submission of his disability claim, Donald W. was denied; and after filing all his administrative appeals, Donald W. continues to be denied his disability benefits by Aetna. Consequently, Donald W. and his Georgia disability attorney filed a lawsuit against the insurer to try to convince the Court that Aetna’s denial of Donald W. ‘s disability benefits is contrary to the terms of the policy, that that decision is erroneous, capricious and unreasonable, and he and his Georgia disability lawyer asked the Court to order Aetna to fulfill its obligation to pay Donald W. his disability benefits as well as reimburse him for reasonable attorney’s fees, Court costs and interest on his denied benefits.

Case 2: Aetna Lawsuit in Kentucky

Priscilla J. and her Kentucky disability attorney filed a lawsuit against Aetna in the United States District Court of the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green on July 13, 2011 in an effort to recover Priscilla J.’s disability benefits due to be paid to her "under the terms of her employee benefit plan." An employee at Sensus Metering Systems, Priscilla J. was notified by Aetna in a letter dated April 2, 2009 that her appeal of the termination of her short term disability benefits would be terminated because the insurer determined Johnson’s "medical information did not support functional impairment that would prevent her from performing the essential duties of [her] own occupation." Priscilla J.’s disability benefits were initially approved on July 12, 2008 and continued through November 27, 2008.

Priscilla J.’s disability lawyer alleges that the reason Aetna denied Priscilla J.’s disability benefits was due to the insurer’s failure to be contacted by Priscilla J.’s treating physician as her treating physician was out of town and unaware that his input was needed. Upon returning from his out-of-town absence, Priscilla J.’s treating physician tried to contact Aetna’s reviewer to verify Priscilla J.’s disability, but was ignored by the insurer. Consequently, since Priscilla J.’s short term disability benefits were terminated, she had no way of procuring her long term disability benefits and petitions the District Court to order the insurer to conduct a "full and fair review" of her disability claim in its entirety.

Stating that the denial of her claim was "unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious" and has resulted in "great hardship to [Priscilla J.] and her family," Priscilla J. and her disability attorney ask the Court to reverse Aetna’s denial of Priscilla J.’s claim, reinstate her benefits, reinstate her ability to apply for long term disability benefits, reimburse her for attorney’s fees, and provide any other appropriate relief.

Case 3: Aetna Lawsuit in Minnesota

On July 15, 2011, a Hubbell, Inc. warehouse associate and his Minnesota disability lawyer filed a lawsuit against Aetna Life Insurance Company in the United States District Court of Minnesota under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2) and ERISA § 502(e)(2) to recover Charles B.’s long term disability benefits under his employee disability plan. Employed by Hubbell Inc., Charles B. had to stop working in May of 2008 as a result of his disability. Disabled on May 30, 2008, Charles B. applied for and was approved and paid long term disability benefits from November 30, 2008 until December 22, 2008. His disability benefits were terminated by a letter from Aetna with the insurer alleging that Charles B.’s disability "was a result of an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition." After several appeals, Charles B. eventually exhausted all his administrative remedies available per Aetna’s procedures and hired a disability attorney to help him bring his case to the Minnesota District Court for a decision.

In their complaint Charles B. and his lawyer request the District Court to enter a judgment against Aetna to compel the insurer to pay Charles B. retroactive disability benefits from May 30, 2008, declare Charles B. entitled to ongoing disability benefits under his Aetna plan, accrued interest, court costs, disbursements and other litigation expenses, and any "further relief as the Court may deem just and proper."

Case 4: Aetna Lawsuit in New Jersey

A complaint against Aetna Life Insurance Company was filed on August 8, 2011 by Jennifer M. and her New Jersey disability lawyer in the United District Court of New Jersey to collect all past due long term disability benefits and all out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by Jennifer M. as a result of Aetna’s wrongful denial of her Aetna disability benefits. In possession of a valid Aetna disability insurance policy, Jennifer M. began receiving disability benefits from Aetna on June 1, 2008. But, on July 16, 2009, Aetna denied Jennifer M.’s long term disability claim contending that her condition was a pre-existing one and thus disqualified her in receiving disability benefits ongoing.

Disabled and unable to engage in gainful employment in any capacity, Jennifer M. exhausted all her administrative appeals with Aetna and had to file this lawsuit to reclaim her disability benefits. Jennifer M. was employed by Camuto VCS Group at the time of her disabling event. And, since Aetna has refused to provide Jennifer M. with her disability benefits as set forth in her employee disability insurance policy, Jennifer M. and her disability lawyer allege that she has sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Aetna’s denial of her disability benefits.

In the lawsuit Jennifer M. and her lawyer demand judgment against Aetna and request:

  • A declaration that Jennifer M. is entitled to long term disability benefits pursuant to the Aetna plan;
  • Damages;
  • Interest and suit cost; and
  • Reasonable counsel fees. 

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:
Five disability lawsuits recently filed against UNUM in Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan

Five ERISA disability lawsuits have been recently filed against the UNUM Life Insurance Company of America for the wrongful denial of disability benefits. In each of the cases, a disability attorney from Tennessee, Ohio, Missouri and Michigan have filed suit for the payment of disability benefits that have been wrongfully denied and owed to their clients. Let’s take a closer look at each of the lawsuits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Disabled attorney forced to sue UNUM for her disability benefits

A 53-year-old disabled attorney and her New York disability attorney filed a Federal lawsuit against the insurer UNUM on July 15, 2011 for collection of her disability benefits. A Toxic Tort Trial and Litigation Attorney and partner at a well-known firm, the claimant was forced to stop working due to her deteriorating medical condition in April 2009.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Aetna Life Insurance Company sued by Bank of America and Huhtamaki employees for failing to provide ERISA benefits

Two Plaintiffs filed cases against Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna) in the Maine and California District Courts due to the failure to provide disability benefits provided by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. In the previously mentioned cases filed through the plaintiffs’ disability lawyers, it is alleged that Aetna has wrongfully denied the Plaintiffs’ claims for disability benefits as provided by the terms of those respective plans.

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.