The recently decided case of Barteau v. Prudential, 2009 WL 1505193 (C.D. Cal.) is a reminder of what ends Prudential will go to in denying a claim for benefits. Carl Barteau was an Assistant Professor of Mathematics at DeVry Institute of technology for almost eight years before becoming disabled. Mr. Barteau had suffered problems with his right eye since childhood. In 2002 he underwent surgery for glaucoma, which was complicated by a scratched cornea. As a result of the scratched cornea he was instructed to wear a replaceable contact lens and was reassured the eye would heal on its own. Soon after he began experiencing excruciating pain, and on January 7, 2003 he began treatment at UCLA. Biopsies of the eye were taken and showed evidence of eye fungus. On January 17, 2003, he became hospitalized and underwent surgery to remove a large part of the infection from his right eye. On February 22, 2003, he underwent a second surgery on his right eye. Following the second surgery he began to experience a lack of vision in his right eye and disabling light sensitivity in both eyes.
Former Options Trader Receives Confidential Long-Term Disability Settlement 10 Years After His Original Claim Was Denied
Attorneys Dell & Schaefer successfully resolved a long-term disability claim for a former floor trader on the Chicago Board of Options Exchange (“CBOE”). In July 1998, Mr. T underwent bilateral eye surgery to correct vision loss which was preventing Mr. T from accurately reading the monitors in his trading pit, a necessary skill in Mr. T’s profession. Despite undergoing corrective eye surgery and hoping to return to his occupation as a floor trader, Mr. T continued to suffer from visual difficulties as result of dry eyes, halos and glare.
In December 1998, further corrective surgery was attempted; however, it failed to correct his vision to the extent that he could return to trading on the floor of the CBOE. Mr. T realized that he had no further option but to file a claim for disability benefits under his individual long-term disability insurance policy.
Attorneys Dell & Schaefer’s Client Takes Her Case To Trial Against Prudential In Hawaii District Court
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 we are currently waiting for a verdict from the court.
Broadspire And Aetna Deny Long-Term Disability Benefits To Manager Suffering From Fibromyalgia, Arthritis And Cervical Disc Disease
The case of Mary Midgett v. Washington Group International Long Term Disability Plan, 561 F.3d 887 (8th Cir. 2009) is a reminder that there are discrepancies in how Federal courts apply the law with regard to the weight of credibility to give to an insured’s treating physicians versus the opinions of doctors hired by the insurance carrier to conduct reviews of medical records only.
Mary Midgett was a contract manager for Washington Group International, and was insured under Washington’s group short term and long term disability policies. The policies were originally administered by Broadspire, and then by Aetna. Ms. Midgett filed for benefits under Washington’s short term disability policy due to a myriad of conditions including degenerative arthritis, fibromyalgia and cervical degenerative disc disease, and osteoporosis.
Nurse Anesthetist Denied Long-Term Disability Benefits For Drug Addiction By Continental Casualty Loses At Trial And On Appeal
Robert Stanford was a nurse anesthetist in a hospital in South Carolina. In his position, he was exposed to and responsible for administering anesthesia and narcotics to surgical and obstetric patients. Shortly after starting work, he began taking Fentanyl, a powerful narcotic. By September of 2003 he had become addicted to the drug, and entered rehabilitation the following month.
After release from rehabilitation, but before returning to work, Stanford relapsed, and returned to rehabilitation, where he stayed for 3 months this time. While in rehabilitation, he applied for long-term disability benefits with Continental Casualty, which provided benefits through his employer. While in rehab, his benefits were approved.
Judge Orders Prudential To Pay Account Manager $90,416 In Long-Term Disability Benefits
In, Lona v. Prudential, 2009 WL 801868 (S.D. Cal)., the Court determined that the opinions of three doctors hired by the insurance carrier to review the insured’s medical records did not carry as much weight as the opinions of three other doctors that physically examined the insured. This case shows that Prudential will continue to hire doctors to review a claimant’s disability file, until they have found the right doctor to provide the opinion they are looking for.
Teacher Suffering From Sjorgen’s Syndrome, Fibromyalgia And Other Conditions Receives Lump-Sum Buyout Following Denial Of Long-Term Disability Benefits
Prior to becoming disabled, Mrs. C was an eighth grade English literature teacher in southern California. In 1996, Mrs. C began experiencing pain in her muscles and joints as well as fatigue and disturbed sleep. Her physicians soon diagnosed her with various connective tissue disorders, including: Sjogren’s syndrome, rheumatoid arthritis, atypical lupus , Raynaud’s phenomenon, fibromyalgia and muti-nodular goiter. She was experiencing pain in a number of small joints in her upper extremities, as well as her knees, ankles and hands. The stress and emotional toll was even causing her to experience hair loss. In 2002, Mrs. C was forced to stop working and file a claim for disability benefits under her long-term disability policy provided through her teacher’s association. After reviewing her claim and giving careful consideration to the medical evidence, the disability insurer approved Mrs. C’s claim and began paying total disability benefits.
Aetna’s Denial of Disability Benefits to An OBGYN Physician Is Reversed Following An Appeal Submitted By Attorneys Dell & Schaefer
Our client, an obstetrician/gynecologist, suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and could no longer perform his occupation. He approached Dell & Schaefer seeking assistance with his long-term disability applications. After completion of his applications for private long-term disability insurance benefits and approval by two different insurance companies, the doctor disclosed that he had recently been denied short-term disability benefits by Aetna.
Podiatrist Receives Lump-Sum Buyout at Pre-Suit Mediation With Long-Term Disability Insurer
The Client, a South Florida podiatrist, retained the law firm of Attorneys Dell & Schaefer in December 2007 due to the denial of disability benefits by one of her two long-term disability insurance carriers. Beginning in 1999 the client began suffering complications from fibromyalgia, sjogren’s syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome.
Determined to continue the practice of podiatry and not allow her disabling conditions to destroy the practice she had worked so hard to build, the client continued to treat patients, perform surgeries and work a full time work week. However, it was not long before our client was forced to reduce her working hours and as a result experienced decreased revenues, less patients and canceled appointments.
CIGNA’S Attempt To Limit Claimant To A Maximum Of 2 Years Of Long-Term Disability Benefits Limitation For An Organic Brain Disorder Such As Bi-Polar Is Reversed By The District Court
Cigna attempted to deny lifetime disability benefits for a claimant suffering from a psychiatric organic brain disorder, but the district court of Colorado disagreed. Following a remand from the court of appeals, which ruled the district court had erred by considering evidence outside the “administrative record,” the district court nonetheless reaffirmed its ruling in plaintiff’s favor after carefully considering all of the evidence in the record and analyzing each of the medical opinions presented.
