ERISA

Why Insurers Cannot Ignore Subjective Evidence Which Supports A Long-Term Disability Claim

Published on: August 5, 2019 | by Matt Pulle

In our firm’s experience, administrators of ERISA plans (“insurers”) are quick to disregard subjective conditions when evaluating individual claims for long-term disability benefits. Although conditions like chronic pain, stress and fatigue can make it impossible for people to work a full-time job, insurers will regularly discount medical evidence that cannot be measured by an X-Ray, MRI, blood test or other objective measurements. There is good news for claimants, however. In the Sixth Circuit, which includes the federal district courts in Tennessee, courts have repeatedly stated that insurers cannot ignore subjective evidence in support of a disability claim−unless the policy at issue allows them to do so.

For example, in Evans v. Unumprovident Corp. (6th Cir.2006), a claimant applied for long-term disability benefits on the basis that her epileptic seizures prevented her from working at her job as a nursing home administrator. Her treating physician stated that the stress from her job led to the severity and frequency of her seizures. While on medical leave, the claimant’s condition improved. As a result, her treating physician determined that it would be in her best interest not to return to work.

However, the insurer denied the claim finding it unreasonable for the claimant’s physician to opine that a return to work would exacerbate the claimant’s condition. In reaching this decision, the insurer relied heavily on its own physician’s review of the claimant’s medical records, in which that reviewing physician determined that the impact of stress on the claimant’s condition was entirely self-reported and had not been corroborated by medical studies.

Finding that the insurer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s re-instatement of disability benefits. It also affirmed the district court’s award of past-due benefits and attorney’s fees. In explaining its ruling, the court observed that, while the insurer’s physicians described the plaintiff’s stress as “unverifiable,” her disability policy “does not state that self-reported occurrences are to be accorded lesser significance when considering whether a person is able to work.”

When Denying a Claim for Long-Term Disability Benefits, Plan Administrators Must Evaluate the Demands of the Claimant’s Job

Published on: April 1, 2019 | by Matt Pulle

When we are retained by a new ERISA disability client, one of the first documents we review is the letter from the plan administrator denying long-term disability benefits, or, as it is most often called, the “denial letter.” Most denial letters, regardless of the disability at issue, follow the same formula: A general description of the claimant’s physical or mental condition, a brief explanation downplaying the severity of the claimant’s condition, and a conclusory sentence stating that the claimant is able to meet the occupational standard of the policy.

This type of letter can be challenged in court as evidence that the plan administrator’s denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, and should be overturned. For example, in Elliott v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (2006), the Sixth Circuit examined a denial letter that noted that the plaintiff’s medical documentation “does not support a condition of a severity that would prevent you from working.” The court took issue with the defendant’s denial letter. It noted that the denial letter included “no statement or discussion” of the plaintiff’s occupational duties or her ability, or inability, to perform them. The court also observed that the physician who reviewed the claim on behalf of the defendant gave no opinion as to how the plaintiff’s “medical condition” related to the demands of the job.

As the Elliot court saw it, the defendant’s denial letter was evidence that the defendant did not make a “reasoned judgment” in evaluating the plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits. More specifically, the defendant failed to rely on medical evidence that assessed the plaintiff’s physical ability to perform her job. Because of the defendant’s flawed review, the court overturned the defendant’s denial of long-term disability benefits.

You Don’t Always Have to Appeal Your Denial of Long-Term Disability Benefits Before Filing Suit

Published on: February 13, 2019 | by Matt Pulle

In a post from a little over a year ago, we discussed that, if you have an ERISA long-term disability claim, you generally cannot file a lawsuit challenging an insurer’s denial of benefits until you have exhausted your administrative remedies. So, even if the insurer, or plan administrator, denied your claim for long-term disability benefits, you still must file an administrative appeal. In most cases, if you do not file an appeal and exhaust your administrative remedies, you will be barred from bringing a lawsuit in court.

In our prior post, we discussed one exception to the exhaustion requirement. If filing a disability claim would be futile, a court will allow a disability lawsuit to proceed even if the claimant did not exhaust his or her administrative remedies. This exception is called the “futility doctrine,” and it is recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the circuit that includes all the federal courts in Tennessee). So, even if your policy requires that you exhaust your administrative remedies before filing suit, a court will not dismiss your lawsuit if you can show that your appeal would have been unsuccessful based on how your insurer handled your claim.

There is another exception to the exhaustion requirementꟷif your policy simply does not require you to file an administrative appeal before filing suit. We came across this situation recently with one of our disability clients who decided not to appeal her denial of long-term disability benefits. The client, let’s call her Jen, was discouraged after her disability case manager told her it would be a “waste of time” to appeal her denial of long-term disability benefits since she had already been turned down for short-term disability benefits. After about a year had passed, Jen decided to file a lawsuit challenging the insurer’s denial of her claim.

After she brought her lawsuit, the insurer filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to throw out her case because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. In our response, we argued that Jen’s lawsuit was allowed under the “futility doctrine” based on the negative comments of her disability case manager.

Additionally, we argued that Jen’s policy did not require her to exhaust her administrative remedies by appealing the denial of long-term disability benefits. The basis for this was the language in Jen’s policy which provided that a claimant could not initiate any legal action:

(1) Until 60 days after Proof of claim has been given; or

(2) More than three years after the time Proof of claim is required.

Because Jen’s lawsuit complied with the above terms and because she had no obligation under the policy to file an appeal, we argued the insurer’s summary judgment motion should be denied. Although the Sixth Circuit does require that claimants exhaust their administrative remedies before bringing suit, we argued that rule shouldn’t apply if the policy didn’t actually include an exhaustion requirement.

The court agreed. In recommending that the insurer’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, the magistrate judge cited, among other reasons, the policy’s failure to include a requirement that claimants file an administrative appeal before filing a lawsuit. Continue reading

Just Because Your Employee Disability Policy Says It’s Governed By ERISA Doesn’t Mean It Is

Published on: November 4, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

Nearly all employee benefit plans are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. ERISA is a federal law. As a result, claimants who sue their plans for a denial of disability benefits usually will have to try their cases in federal courts.

More importantly, in an ERISA case, a claimant must show the court that a denial of disability benefits was not merely incorrect, but “arbitrary and capricious.” That’s a difficult standard. In an ERISA case, it’s not enough for claimants to show that the plan’s decision to deny them benefits was incorrect; they must also show that the decision had no factual basis.

Despite the broad scope of ERISA, it expressly exempts from its provisions any “governmental plan.” What that means for a government employee, or anyone else covered under the exception, is that he or she can bring a lawsuit challenging a denial of disability benefits without having to contend with ERISA’s strict standards and procedural requirements. Usually, that will be an advantage to the claimant bringing the disability lawsuit.

Further, in Tennessee, a claimant exempted from ERISA by the governmental exception can raise state law claims against the disability insurer or plan administrator including a bad faith failure to pay claim. Under Tennessee’s bad faith failure to pay law, a claimant could be awarded up to 25 percent of his or her claim as a bad faith penalty. In contrast, claimants cannot avail themselves of state law remedies in a standard ERISA action.

As you might expect, under ERISA, a governmental plan includes any plan established by the federal government or by any state government. However, the definition of a governmental plan does not stop there. ERISA also extends the definition of a governmental plan to include any plan established by a political subdivision or any agency or instrumentality of the government, state or federal.

In most cases, it’s fairly easy to determine if you have a governmental plan. However, because ERISA does not provide any definition of the terms “political subdivision” or “instrumentality of government,” there are some gray areas as to when an employer’s disability plan meets the governmental exception. What’s important to remember, for claimants and practitioners alike, is that private entities may still be considered an “instrumentality of government,” particularly if they contract with a municipal organization or body.

Why You Can Still Apply for Disability Benefits After You’ve Been Fired

Published on: September 26, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

At first glance, it did not seem like a strong claim for disability benefits. The claimant, a technician, applied for short-term disability benefits claiming that he was disabled as a result of severe spinal and hip disorders. He filed his claim after his employer fired him for repeated acts of insubordination. Under the terms of his ERISA policy, no individual could qualify for disability benefits if the period of disability began when he or she was no longer an employee of the company. Solely due to this provision, the plan administrator (“Plan”) denied the claim for disability benefits.

In his lawsuit seeking to overturn the Plan’s decision to deny him disability benefits, the claimant argued that his period of disability began more than six months before his termination.

His case is Hipple v. Matrix Absence Mgmt., Inc., (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2014), and it is a decision of considerable importance for disability claimants. In Hipple, the claimant’s argument, on the surface at least, could seem flawed. How could you be disabled during a period in which you were still working? In Hipple, the court denied the Plan’s motion for summary judgment, faulting the Plan’s assumption that, because the claimant continued to show up to work until the day he was fired, “he was not disabled before that date.”

The ruling in Hipple is critical: A disability plan administrator cannot turn down a claim for disability benefits solely because the claimant continued to work after he or she began experiencing the onset of the disabling condition.

Hipple is not an anomaly, but, in fact, expanded on precedent. In the case of Rochow v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 482 F.3d 860 (6th Cir. 2007), the Sixth Circuit held that a plan administrator could not deny an employee’s claim for disability benefits “solely because the employee was present at work on or after the alleged disability onset date.” In Rochow¸ the Sixth Circuit also determined that the plaintiff, whose employment was terminated before he sought disability benefits, had been disabled under the terms of his policy before he was terminated. As the court noted: “[T]here is no logical incompatibility between working full-time and being disabled from working full-time.” Continue reading

If You Leave Your Employer but Maintain Your Disability Policy, You Probably Still Can’t Escape the Tough Rules of ERISA

Published on: May 24, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

In a dispute over long-term disability benefits, it’s important to determine if the disability policy falls within the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

ERISA is a federal statute that applies to claims for employee benefits, including disability benefits. All else being equal, a claimant will have an easier time overturning a denial of disability benefits if the employee’s disability plan is not governed by ERISA. That is because claimants making claims under policies governed by ERISA face significant hurdles not faced by claimants who have non-ERISA policies.

The most consequential difference between ERISA and non-ERISA disability cases is that federal courts decide ERISA cases under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review. What that means is that courts will not overturn a denial of disability benefits unless they find that the denial was without a factual basis. This is a highly deferential standard of review and requires a court to uphold a plan administrator’s denial of benefits if it is supported by only modest evidence in the record.

As well, ERISA claimants cannot recover extra-contractual damages that otherwise may be available under state law. In addition, ERISA claimants typically cannot avail themselves of discovery to learn more about their denial of benefits. Rather, they can only rely on what is in the administrative record, or the claim file, in arguing that they are entitled to long-term disability benefits.

Because it is so important to know if a disability case will be subject to ERISA, one would think that it would be relatively easy to figure out if the policy at issue is subject to ERISA. Unfortunately, that’s not always the case. For example, in Alexander v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co (E.D. Tenn. 2009), the plaintiff’s policy bore the hallmarks of both an ERISA and a non-ERISA policy. In that case, the plaintiff, a doctor, had an individual disability policy through his employer, a medical practice. After he left the medical practice that employed him, he continued the policy and paid all the premiums.

When Providing Information to Your Disability Insurer Be Careful: Anything You Say Can And Will be Used Against You

Published on: January 2, 2018 | by Matt Pulle

In an ERISA case, at the center of any dispute over a claimant’s eligibility for long-term disability benefits is the administrative record.

The administrative record is legalese for all the medical records, documents and other information obtained by, and submitted to, the plan administrator during the initial stages of the claim and through the appeal process.

One reason the administrative record is so important is that a claimant who challenges a denial of long-term disability benefits by filing a court action generally cannot present evidence to the court that is not in the record. Another reason is that disability insurers and plan administrators can—and will—take information from the administrative record out of context to justify denying a claim for disability benefits.

Here is a real-life example: A claimant filled out an “Activities Questionnaire” for her plan administrator and answered questions about her abilities. In the questionnaire, the claimant reported that she walked two miles a week on an underwater treadmill. One key advantage of the underwater treadmill is that it can make it easier for a person experiencing joint pain to walk because the water diminishes the pounding on the person’s knees, hips and neck. In addition, the person can hold onto the handlebars of the treadmill for support. Given these features, it is much easier to walk on an underwater treadmill than on a sidewalk or around a high school track.

The plan administrator denied the claim. In its letter explaining why it rejected the disability claim, the plan administrator specifically mentioned that the claimant was able to walk two miles a week, while neglecting to point out that she did so on an underwater treadmill. This omission was obviously self-serving because it gave an exaggerated depiction of the claimant’s abilities and condition.

The Futility Exception to the ERISA Requirement that Claimants Must Exhaust Their Administrative Remedies in Order to be Able to File a Lawsuit

Published on: December 22, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

If you have an ERISA long-term disability claim, you cannot file a lawsuit challenging an insurer’s denial of benefits until you have exhausted your administrative remedies. So, even if the insurer, or plan administrator, denied your claim for long-term disability benefits, you still need to take the time to file an administrative appeal, unless you do not want pursue your right to disability benefits.

There is an exception, however, to the rule that you must appeal the initial denial. If filing an appeal would be “futile,” a court will allow a disability lawsuit to proceed even if the claimant did not exhaust his or her administrative remedies. This exception is called the “futility doctrine,” and it is recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the circuit that includes all the federal courts in Tennessee).

Shaw v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 1; One of the Most Helpful Sixth Circuit Cases for Disability Claimants and their Attorneys

Published on: November 30, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

For claimants, it is not easy to challenge an insurer’s denial of long-term disability benefits in court, particularly in an ERISA case. Courts review the insurer’s or administrator’s decision under an “arbitrary and capricious” standard meaning that they will uphold the decision as long as it was the result of a “deliberate, principled reasoning process.” To put it simply, a court will uphold a decision to deny long-term disability benefits even if it disagrees with it, so long as the insurer can point to some facts justifying the denial.

Because no two disability cases are alike, courts have not, and cannot, set out clear rules on what constitutes an arbitrary and capricious denial of benefits. However, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the circuit that includes all the federal courts in Tennessee) provides important guidance on when an insurer’s disability determination, under the arbitrary and capricious standard, will be reversed. Continue reading

Surveillance and Social Media Investigations by Long-Term Disability Insurance Companies

Published on: October 17, 2017 | by Matt Pulle

If you’re applying for long-term disability benefits, not much of your private life is off limits. Whether you’re mowing your lawn or posting on your Facebook page, your disability insurer can monitor your activities in search of any reason to deny your claim for benefits. And, it may well do so.

In O’Bryan v. Consol Energy, Inc., (2012), the Sixth Circuit (which includes all federal courts in Tennessee) held that there is nothing improper with a plan administrator conducting surveillance on a claimant for long-term disability benefits. In that case, Liberty Life Assurance Company (“Liberty”) paid an investigator to put a disability claimant under surveillance. The investigator then observed the claimant performing common daily tasks, such as getting in and out of his vehicle, putting fuel in his vehicle, and mowing the lawn. Because of the investigator’s findings, Liberty denied the disability claim. When the Plaintiff challenged the company’s decision, the court upheld Liberty’s decision to deny benefits, specifically citing Liberty’s argument that the investigator’s surveillance report contradicted the symptoms the claimant reported to his medical examiners.