A recent article written by Evan George of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, documents a new bill that would be a great thing for long-term disability claims that are governed by ERISA. If this bill passess, we can only hope that other states across the country would adopt similar legislation. Discretionary clauses do nothing other than tie the hands of judges and increase the profits of disability isnurance companies. A special thanks to Evan for sharing this article with our law firm and for his efforts in independently reporting the actions of long-term disability insurance companies. 

→ Click here to continue reading California lawmakers want to assist disability insurance claimants

On April 7, 2010, the ABC Good Morning America (“GMA”) show once again presented a story exposing the desperate actions of the Hartford Insurance Company. Disability insurance companies are notorious for using video surveillance. Hartford is one of the country’s largest long-term disability carriers.

→ Click here to continue reading Hartford continues to use video surveillance to wrongfully deny long-term disability claims

An order granting discovery of Unum employee performance reviews was issued out of the U. S. District Court, Southern District of California that highlights how important it is for a disability insurance attorney to couch discovery requests carefully.

→ Click here to continue reading Unum attempts to hide California disability insurance attorney’s attempt to obtain Unum employee reviews

On January 19, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit handed down a decision based on arguments heard between the disability attorney of Edward F. Richards and Prudential Insurance Company of America on October 7, 2009. This is another case that highlights the difficulties faced by disability claimants suffering with fibromyalgia. It demonstrates how important it is to hire an attorney who pays attention to the fine details and has a clear understanding of what his or her clients need to do in order to win their case.

→ Click here to continue reading Man with fibromyalgia faces Prudential Insurance in appeals court (Part II)

Another case heard on October 7, 2009 before the United States Court of Appeals First Circuit highlights the challenges of obtaining benefits when a claimant suffers from fibromyalgia. This case also highlights how one court can find a successful application for Social Security disability benefits as compelling evidence that a person deserves their long-term disability benefits and how another court will side with the insurance company’s argument that the plan criteria is different from Social Security’s disability criteria.

→ Click here to continue reading Prudential denies disability benefits to man with fibromyalgia after paying benefits for 10 years

A case that took over 10 years to move through the federal judicial system, finally ended with the court agreeing that Unum must pay attorney’s fees and costs. However when the bill was delivered, Unum sought the court’s intervention because Unum claimed that the attorney fees and costs were excessive.

Jane Fitts’ long term disability battle with Unum had been a long one. The final bill that her attorneys delivered came to $1,384,127.79 in fees and costs. She supplied supporting records of the time spent by her attorneys. Unum contended that it should only have to pay half of this, and Fitts found herself in court once again.

→ Click here to continue Court Orders UNUM to pay over one million dollars in attorney fees for long-term disability denial

When Donna Cusson took her long-term disability case to the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit on September 15, 2009, she hoped for a reversal of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts’ decision in favor of Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Mutual). We have already shared the background to this case in Liberty Mutual wins long-term disability case because of video surveillance—backdrop for an unsuccessful LTD claim (Part 1). Now, we will look at both the District Court and Appeals Court decisions because the District Court’s decision is what the Appeals Court would be considering.

→ Click here to continue reading Liberty Mutual wins long-term disability case because of video surveillance—how District and Appeals Courts drew conclusions (Part II)

Donna Cusson went into Appeals Court challenging the First District Court’s decision issuing summary judgment to Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Mutual) and thereby upholding the disability denial. Cusson believed that the material facts in her case should have gone in her favor, not the disability insurance company’s.

In this article, we will look at the background for this case. Hints as to why her appeal proved unsuccessful are found in her history.

→ Click here to continue reading Liberty Mutual wins long-term disability case because of video surveillance—backdrop for an unsuccessful LTD claim (Part 1)

As of the time of this writing, Beverly Barker doesn’t know the answer to that question. Court proceedings are complicated and seeking compensation for long-term disability benefits is no exception. A case heard in December 2009 in U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division demonstrates this yet again.

→ Click here to continue reading Will Life Insurance Company of America have to pay long-term disability benefits?

When an insurance company uses a deliberate, principled reasoning process, supported by enough evidence, the United States court system will stand behind them. This fact is highlighted by a case that was argued before the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which covers the states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. Arguments were heard by the judges on December 1, 2009 and a decision was filed on February 5, 2010.

→ Click here to continue reading Reliance Standard long-term disability benefits decision affirmed by Circuit Court