Disability Benefit Claims Law Blog

Northrop Grumman Employee Sues Unum For Violation of ERISA Rights and Reinstatement of Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 16 May 2012 17:32:58 -0500

In Hoang N VS Unum Life Insurance Company of America and Northrop Grumman Long Term Disability Plan, Plaintiff wants reinstatement of long term disability payments that were originally paid, then terminated, by Unum.

The Plaintiff, with the help of his California Disability Attorney, has filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court Central District of California against Unum.

Plaintiff's History and Reasons For Filing a Claim

Plaintiff worked as a systems administrator and network engineer at Northrop Grumman. His employment entitled him to be a participant in the Long Term Disability plan and other employee benefit plans that were established and maintained by Northrop Grumman.

Plaintiff suffered serious injury to his cervical spine when a heavy metal door fell on his head at work and knocked him to the ground unconscious. This accident caused the Plaintiff to become disabled as defined under the terms of the LTD Plan. Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendants for LTD benefits under terms of the Plan. The Defendants originally approved the claim for LTD benefits.

Unum and Northrop Grumman Improperly Terminate Long Term Disability Benefits

On or about November 4, 2008, Defendants abruptly terminate the LTD benefits received by the Plaintiff. From the period of November 2008 through June 2009. Plaintiff's doctor reports that the Plaintiff was suffering from the following conditions:

Dysphoric mood
Excessive worrying
Insomnia
Confusion
Irritability
Lack of appetite
Intermittent suicidal ideation
Social isolation
Paranoia

Plaintiff filed an appeal of Defendants' denial on June 12, 2009. Unum replied to Plaintiff on June 15, 2009 that they could not review Plaintiff's claim because the appeal came after the 180-day deadline, meaning that the original decision on the claim must stand.

After Plaintiff received a Social Security Administration decision in his favor, Plaintiff again requested that Defendants reinstate his long term disability benefits on April 25, 2011. Once again, on May 2, 2011, Defendants deny Plaintiff's request. (Can the disability insurance company still deny you even if the Social Security Administration has awarded disability benefits?)

Due to the fact that Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies required under ERISA, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Unum and Northrop Grumman.

Basis for Plaintiff's Lawsuit

Plaintiff claims that Defendants failed to allow Plaintiff to file an administrative appeal against California's notice-prejudice rule, which only prevents a person from filing an administrative appeal after a deadline if the Defendants are actually and substantially prejudiced by the delay. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants prevented Plaintiff from filing an administrative appeal when Defendants knew that the Plaintiff was suffering from severe cognitive problems.

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants did not provide any reasonable explanation of why Plaintiff's appeal was not considered, nor why his original claim was denied. Defendants also did not provide any explanation of what materials could have been added to increase the chances of a successful claim.

Plaintiff also claims that Defendants failed to adequately inform the Plaintiff of notice requirements under ERISA. Additionally, Defendants failed to properly investigate the merits of the Plaintiff's claim.

Type of Relief Requested from the Court

Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the following relief:

Plaintiff is able to file an administrative appeal of the denial of his original claim
The administrative appeal will be given full and fair consideration
All associated costs are paid
All appropriate attorney fees are paid
All other relief decided upon by the Court is fulfilled

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. Request a free legal consultation here or call 800-698-9162.

This Week on DIAttorney.com (05/12/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 12 May 2012 06:46:26 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
New York Federal Court Denies MetLife’s Motion To Dismiss Lyme Disease Victim’s Petition For Disability Benefits

In the case of Karen N. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et. al, the United States District Court of New York, after hearing arguments from both sides regarding MetLife’s Motion to Dismiss the case, denied the motion in its entirety and directs the parties to appear for a status conference to determine how and when the case will proceed. And, while the Court did deny the insurer’s motion, that doesn’t mean that Karen N. will receive a favorable outcome in her lawsuit to receive her disability benefits. It does mean that the Court believes that the case deserves to be heard and ruled upon once all facts have been established.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Pennsylvania Pharmacy Owner Learns The Hard Way That Accuracy Is Everything When Applying for Disability Insurance Benefits

On January 28, 2011, the United Sated District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Michael S. v. Berkshire Life Insurance Company of America, et. al. In addition, the plaintiff’s disability policy and FIO policy were rescinded negating...

FAQ: Social Security Disability Benefits
Can My Disability Insurance Benefits Be Denied If I Am Approved For Social Security Disability Benefits?

Disability Insurance Attorneys Gregory Dell and Cesar Gavidia discuss the misconception that a claimant will be approved for long term disability insurance benefits if social security disability benefits are approved.

Reliance Standard Sued By Community Hospital Nurse For Denial of Long-Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 09 May 2012 18:27:22 -0500

The Plaintiff, Joni D., with the help of her Alabama Disability Attorney has filed a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company and the Group Long Term Disability Policy For Employees Of Madison County Community Hospital for the wrongful termination of long term disability benefits.

In Joni D. Vs. Reliance Standard, Plaintiff is suing the Defendants for the unjust termination of her long term disability benefits under the terms of the long term disability plan.

Plaintiff Needed To Use LTD Plan

Plaintiff worked as a Critical Care Registered Nurse, an occupation that required her to perform and fulfill numerous essential job functions, requirements, and qualifications associated with her occupation, including providing direct and indirect patient care, responding quickly and accurately to changes in condition or response to treatment, and performing general nursing duties. Due to her employment, Plaintiff was eligible and partook in the LTD policy that was underwritten by Reliance Standard.

On or about May 5, 2003, Plaintiff became unable to work due to a culmination of disabling physical health issues. These issues were clearly documented in the Plaintiff's medical records. Plaintiff became totally disabled on a permanent basis on or about February 25, 2010. This prevented her from any type of gainful employment as was confirmed by the Social Security Administration as of May 4, 2003. But does receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration mean the insurance company will also continually provide long term disability benefits? As Joni came to find out, that answer is no.

Filing of Benefits

Plaintiff filed for LTD benefits on or around November 24, 2003. Reliance Standard agreed to pay the LTD benefits effective October 31, 2003. According to the terms of the Plan, the Plaintiff's condition changed from "disability" to "inability" as of October 31, 2006.

Reliance Standard paid LTD benefits for six years. This included paying the Plaintiff disability benefits under the "any occupation" definition of disability from October 31, 2006 to August 31, 2009.

Reliance Standard Terminated the Benefits Five Times From 2003-2010

On five different occasions, Reliance Standard terminated, denied, or closed the claim between October 31, 2003 and January 7, 2010. This was despite the fact that numerous objective tests showed that the Plaintiff's back pain and radiculopathy continued to exist. The Plaintiff has also continually submitted additional evidence confirming her pain, including medical records and information from doctor visits.

Reliance Standard also improperly handled the Plaintiff's claims over the years, including a time when it claimed that the Plaintiff returned to work even though she never did. It is alleged that Reliance Standard did this to avoid paying the Plaintiff LTD benefits. Despite Reliance Standard's own "quality review unit" claiming that Plaintiff met LTD terms of the Plan and could not handle "any occupation," Reliance Standard continually terminated Plaintiff's benefits until its final termination letter on January 7, 2010.

Plaintiff Files Lawsuit Against Reliance Standard and Group

Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Reliance Standard because Reliance Standard based its denial on its own "independent" medical examiner's report and attached physical capacity form, even though the two reports contradicted each other and the Plaintiff's submitted medical records and reports. The examiner was also provided through MES Solutions, a biased third party company that has regularly had contact with Reliance Standard, indicating a conflict of interest. Plaintiff also claims that Reliance Standard failed to consider all medical records and other information submitted by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Seeks The Following From This Lawsuit

Plaintiff wants the following relief from Reliance Standard and Group:

A de novo review of the Plaintiff's claim for long term disability benefits
All of the past due long term disability benefits
Reinstatement of Plaintiff's claim to all present and future disability benefits so long as Plaintiff is eligible under the LTD Plan
Award of all attorney's fees and expenses
Interest on all past due benefits
All other relief that the Court deems to be just and proper

This Week on DIAttorney.com (05/05/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 05 May 2012 06:28:50 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Eastman Chemical Company Employee Loses Lawsuit Against MetLife for Disability Benefits

In a case recently decided by an Arkansas Federal Court, MetLife prevailed in a lawsuit filed by an Eastman Chemical Company Employee. Ultimately, due to video surveillance, a lack of medical support, and the fact that the claimant had continued working at a side job (of which he had failed to inform MetLife of) while claiming to be disabled, the Court, it seems, had no choice but to agree with MetLife’s decision to deny Long Term Disability Benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Bon Secours Employee Wins Lawsuit Against Unum who had Denied Him Disability Benefits

A former Engineer Director for Bon Secours, with the help of his Pennsylvania Disability Attorney, were forced to file a federal ERISA lawsuit after Unum repeatedly denied his claim for Long Term Disability Benefits under a disability policy he was covered under through his employment with Bon Secours. After filing Cross Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court ultimately ruled in favor of the claimant and against Unum.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Do You Know The Job Requirements To Be A Lincoln Financial Disability Claim Specialist?

As a disability lawyer that has handled thousands of disability insurance claims I often wonder about the qualifications and experience of the disability company employee that is making the decision to approve or deny my client’s claim. During our routine activities of watching The Lincoln Financial Group, I came across an internet job posting for an “Associate LTD Benefit Specialist” at Lincoln Financial in Atlanta, Georgia.The qualifications and requirements for the Lincoln benefit Specialist position are also listed at the end of this article.

Disability Blog & Cases:
A Claimant’s View of a Prudential Disability Benefit Denial

We always welcome our clients and other disability claimants nationwide to share their experiences regarding the handling of their disability insurance claim. A client of our law firm that was denied long term disability benefits by Prudential Insurance Company recently posted her thoughts...

Disability Blog & Cases:
Do You Know The Differences Between ERISA Disability Policy And NON-ERISA Disability Policy?

Watch our video to learn more about long term disability insurance claims which are subject to ERISA.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Will A $38 Million Loss Result In More Prudential Disability Insurance Claim Denials?

Prudential is not very happy right now and disability claimants may suffer as a result. Prudential’s group insurance division, which includes long-term disability insurance policies, reported a 2012 first quarter loss of $38 million compared to a gain of $39, million a year ago...

UnitedHealth Nurse Sues Standard Insurance Company For Refusal To Pay Long Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 02 May 2012 17:09:47 -0500

The Plaintiff, with the help of her Massachusetts Disability Lawyer, has filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court against Standard Insurance Company (Standard) for the denial of long term disability benefits as defined by the Plan that the Plaintiff was eligible due to her employment as a nurse with UnitedHealth Group.

The Plaintiff is a 63-year-old resident of Wrentham, Norfolk County, Massachusetts, while Standard is engaged in the business of disability insurance, and is licensed and authorized to engage in the business of insurance within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In regards to this lawsuit, Standard engaged in the administration and, in pertinent part, insurance, of the UnitedHealth Group, Long Term Disability Plan.

In Kathleen F Vs Standard Insurance Company, Plaintiff seeks reinstatement of long term disability benefits as defined by the terms of the Plan.

Plaintiff's Background and Reasons For Submittal of Claim

Plaintiff worked as a healthcare utilization review coordinator for UnitedHealth Group, up to and including January 3, 2006. On or about January 3, 2006, Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a right acetabular (hip) fracture. She could not perform the duties of her occupation, or any occupation, due to multiple complications of the healing of the fracture (non-union), as well as severe posttraumatic arthritis secondary to the injury and depression secondary to the injury.

Plaintiff filed for long term disability benefits under the LTD plan. She provided the necessary claim forms, physicians' statements, and supportive medical records. UnitedHealth Group, who funds the first 24 months of benefit payments, approved the claim. This would last through July 2, 2008. After this date, Standard was expected to take over the LTD payments.

Standard Decides To Not Fulfill LTD Payments To Plaintiff

Via letter dated March 31, 2008, Standard denied Plaintiff's claim for disability benefits when it was due to take over payments on July 3, 2008. Plaintiff filed an appeal of this denial, including additional medical support for her claim. However, Standard denied her appeal on July 28, 2008.

Plaintiff was offered, and through counsel, requested an additional level of review by letter dated September 22, 2008. Plaintiff thereafter submitted additional support for her claim, including a recorded video statement on DVD. Plaintiff requested a copy of the complete claim file from Standard on September 22, 2008. Standard did provide some of the requested records, but not provide any of the requested guidelines, policies, or procedures. Plaintiff again requested these relevant documents via letter dated November 27, 2008.

Standard denied Plaintiff's appeal via letter dated April 27, 2009. Standard informed Plaintiff that she has exhausted her administrative remedies. Because of this, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Standard.

Merits of the Lawsuit Against Standard

Plaintiff asserts that Standard did not properly apply the provisions of the LTD plan to her claim. Plaintiff still has not received the requested documents she asked for from Standard. This has denied the Plaintiff her ERISA's statutory right to a "full and fair review" of her claim, as it has prevented her from mounting additional argument in favor of her claim and deprived her of the opportunity to submit evidence that may perfect her claim. This leads to the assertion that Standard breached its fiduciary duties as an ERISA administrator and shows a clear abuse of discretion.

Plaintiff's Relief Requests

Plaintiff wants the following relief from Standard:

Plaintiff has been and continues to be eligible to receive LTD benefits as defined by the terms of the Plan
Standard must pay all disability benefits to which the Plaintiff is entitled to and owed from July 3, 2008 to the present date
All attorney's fees, interest, costs, and disbursements be paid
All other relief that the Court determines to be necessary and just

This Week on DIAttorney.com (04/28/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:28:05 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Kentucky Woman Wins Lawsuit Against Mutual Of Omaha Insurance

Claiming that her long term disability benefits were denied improperly under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and 29 U.S.C.§ 1001, et. seq., Nancy C. and her Kentucky disability lawyer filed a disability lawsuit against her employer and disability insurer alleging that the denial of her long-term disability benefits by the insurer was “arbitrary and capricious” and constituted a “breach of fiduciary duty and/or bad faith” on the part of the defendants.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Prudential Claimants Unsuccessful At Challenging The Offsetting Of Dependents’ SSDI Benefit Award

Challenging the calculation that Prudential Insurance Company made when reducing their private benefit payments, Kathleen Schultz and Mary Kelly filed a class action lawsuit in hopes of receiving a positive, definitive decision concerning their claims.

EDAC Technologies Employee Sues Unum for Failing to Provide Long Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:26:47 -0500

In Jeffrey D Vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, the Plaintiff, with the help of his Connecticut Disability Attorney, filed this lawsuit due to the wrongful denial of long term disability benefits as promised under theERISA welfare benefit Plan that is underwritten and insured by Unum.

History of Plaintiff

Plaintiff, who is 46 years old, worked as a machinist at two companies in Bristol, Connecticut for a total of 16 years. He then worked as an Electrical Discharge Machine Operator at EDAC Technologies Corporation (EDAC) in Farmington, Connecticut since 2000. His job required him to position and secure workpieces on a table using clamps; measure parts; manually input data into a computer; and regularly exert between 10 and 50 pounds of force with his hands to move objects.

Plaintiff suffers from gout, a form of severe arthritis characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and reduced mobility in the areas affected. These areas usually include the hands, wrists, feet, and ankles. wrists, feet, and ankles. This medical condition causes him consistent severe pain, occasional complete immobility, and a regular inability to use his hands, wrists, feet, and ankles for almost anything, including grasping, pushing, holding, walking, and standing. His dominant (right) hand and wrist are affected more than his non-dominant hand and wrist. Plaintiff first suffered from gout approximately 20 years, and it has worsened progressively over the years.

Due to the continuing deterioration of his gout, Plaintiff can no longer operate as a machinist or in any other occupation. This has been the case since late-September 2010. Plaintiff takes powerful prescription drugs to combat the consistent pain, but the serious side effects from these medications include lightheadedness, forgetfulness, nausea, and fatigue. These prevent him from driving a motor vehicle or operating other types of machinery and industrial equipment.

Plaintiff filed an application for benefits under EDAC's Unum Plan in September 2010. He was to have received 60% of his "monthly earnings" until a maximum age of "Social Security Normal Retirement Age." According to the terms of the Plan, the Plaintiff satisfied the definition of being disabled both regarding his own occupation (first 24 months of benefit collection) and any other occupation (after 24 months of benefit collection).

Unum Denies Claim

On June 29, 2011, Unum denies Plaintiff's benefit application due to the reason that the medical evidence did not support that his gout was disabling under the Plan's definition; he did not satisfy the Plan's requirement that he work 35 hours per week prior in order to qualify for benefits; and he held another part-time job that he did not disclose to Unum, which disqualified him from benefit collection.

Plaintiff filed an appeal on September 24, 2011 disputing these reasons, which Unum essentially admitted as being true and that it was mistaken in Plaintiff having a part-time job. Plaintiff added 68 pages of medical records, letters from his physicians, Unum's internal claim evaluation notes, and seven sworn records to his appeal.

Plaintiff underwent wrist surgery in fall 2010. His surgeon said in June 2011 that he will have no use of his right hand and wrist, further strengthening Plaintiff's claim that he is disabled under the terms of the Plan. A fusion procedure that is recommended for the Plaintiff would prevent him from undertaking any gainful employment that requires Plaintiff to use his right hand to any significant degree.

Plaintiff also demonstrated that he has done no work for his wife's vending cart business. Plaintiff also showed that he briefly dropped under 35 hours of work per week due to gout flare-ups in his feet.

Despite showing all of this, Unum denied Plaintiff's appeal on October 20, 2011 on the same reasons as its original denial. Due to exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Unum.

Reasonings Behind the Lawsuit

Plaintiff claims that Unum's failure to pay these benefits was wrongful, arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise unlawful. Additionally, Unum also chose to disregard the opinion of its own claim reviewer nurse who stated that "it is unlikely that the insured will regain his premorbid level of" functional capacity.

Unum also never requested that Plaintiff undergo an independent medical examination or functional capacity evaluation so that it could attempt to determine the severity of his gout or its impact on his ability to work in his own job or others.

Requested Relief

Plaintiff wants the following relief to be granted by this Court:

Payment of all unpaid monthly disability payments
All prejudgment interest
Costs associated with filing this lawsuit
All appropriate attorney's fees
Reinstatement of Plaintiff's eligibility for continued disability benefit payments in the future
All other relief deemed proper by this Court

This Week on DIAttorney.com (04/21/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:26:37 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Minnesota Disability Claimant Filed Suit Against Employer Over Terminated Disability Benefits

A Minnesota Federal Court recently ruled against a claimant and in favor of the employer with regards to disability benefits. This case is a poignant reminder that even after being on claim for nearly 7 years, a claimant can be denied at any time. It further shows why it is important to have your claim sufficiently supported with evidence from your treating physician whether the claim administer requests it or not. Let’s take a closer look at the case of Richard P. v. Kohler Co.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Court Finds MetLife Has No Right To Request An IME After Unnecessary Delay

Recently, a claimant was forced to hire a California Disability Lawyer and file a lawsuit against MetLife after being denied continued Long Term Disability Benefits. After agreeing with the claimant that she was disabled through the "own occupation" period, the Court awarded the claimant benefits for that limited time period. However, the court then asked MetLife to take a closer look at the "any occupation" period. For an unexplained reason, MetLife dragged its feet on making a determination.

Disabled Liberty National Sales Agent Sues Sun Life After Long Term Disability Benefits Are Terminated

Gregory Dell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:22:11 -0500

In Mary A. Vs Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, the Plaintiff, with the help of her Alabama Disability Attorney, files this lawsuit against Sun Life seeking reinstatement of long term disability benefits as promised under the terms of the Plan.

History of Case

Plaintiff is a disabled individual who was employed by Liberty National as a Sales Agent. This occupation required her to consistently spend an average of nine hours "in the field" traveling to and from job sites. It further required 10-11 hour work days during the course of a week. The Plaintiff was required to perform and fulfill numerous essential job functions, requirements, and qualifications associated with her occupation. Some of these functions included compiling lists of prospective clients, contacting those prospective clients, calling on policyholders to deliver and explain the policy, and servicing the business of existing and new customers.

On or about January 28, 2007, Plaintiff became unable to work due to a culmination of disabling physical health issues. These issues related to seizure auras, physical pain, fatigue, sleepiness, dizziness, and problems with memory. These issues primarily relate to seizure auras, physical pain, fatigue, sleepiness, dizziness, and problems with memory. As a result of her health problems and inability to continue working, the Plaintiff filed an application for long term disability benefits with Sun Life on or around July 12, 2007.

Sun Life approved the claim and began paying out monthly disability benefits effective July 27, 2007. The Social Security Administration determined that the Plaintiff was unable to perform any gainful occupation based on her physical health problems, thereby approving her for Social Security Disability benefits upon her initial application. These benefits began to be paid out in July 2007.

Sun Life Abruptly Terminates Long Term Disability Benefit Payments

On or about July 31, 2008, Sun Life informed Plaintiff that she no longer qualified for disability payments based on a review of her records. Plaintiff filed an appeal of this decision via letter dated August 4, 2008. Plaintiff also supplied additional medical documentation that she was still disabled and unable to work. She included notes from two different physicians she had been seeing, both of whom stated that Plaintiff was not able to work.

Despite this mounting evidence, on August 17, 2009, Sun Life terminated Plaintiff's long term disability benefits retroactive to July 27, 2009. Plaintiff filed an appeal letter on or about October 21, 2009. Once again, she submitted multiple pieces of medical evidence, including statements from both treating physicians, to back her claim. Sun Life failed to respond to this latest appeal until it finally sent a letter to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2010.

Due to its failure to follow ERISA regulations, Plaintiff's administrative remedies have been exhausted, leading to the filing of this lawsuit against Sun Life.

Premise of Argument Against Sun Life

Sun Life wrongfully denied Plaintiff's claim and subsequent appeals. It relied upon several biased and erroneous physician consultant reports generated by physicians who are regularly utilized by insurance companies to deny claims.

Furthermore, these physicians were employed by third-party vendor companies Network Medical Review and Professional Disability Associates, companies which receive a substantial portion of income from providing physician consultant reviews to insurance companies and employers. These physicians ignored most of the medical evidence in the claim, cherry-picked evidence favorable to justify a termination of benefits, and misconstrued evidence and statements contained in the claim record.

Relief Sought By Plaintiff Against Sun Life

Plaintiff wants the following relief due to the wrongful termination of long term disability benefits:

An award of penalties of $110.00 per day, per violation for each day that the Defendants fail to provide the long term disability benefits that are promised under the Plan
An award of all associated attorney's fees and court costs
All other relief that the Court decides to be proper and fair

This Week on DIAttorney.com (04/14/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:28:34 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Court Takes Sun Life To Task For Denial Of Disability And Life Insurance Benefits Of Man With Brain Tumor

The widow of a claimant, who died from a malignant brain tumor, brought this lawsuit with the help of her Colorado Disability Lawyer after Sun Life refused to award cancer disability benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
CIGNA Disability Claim Denial: A Claimant's View

Every day disability claimants around the country contact our disability attorneys about a CIGNA disability claim. Many individuals tell us similar stories about the manner in which their CIGNA disability claim has been handled. We wanted to share with you a recent comment that was posted on our website about a CIGNA denial.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Sedgwick Terminates PNC Compliance Specialist’s Long Term Disability Benefits

Recently, a former Compliance Specialist for PNC Financial Services Group was unsuccessful in her lawsuit again her former employer and Sedgwick. This case is a strong reminder that even though a claimant has been awarded disability benefits from the Social Security Administration, it does not mean that the Long Term Disability Insurance Provider must also award disability benefits.

After Being Denied LTD Beneifts, Oscient Pharmaceuticals Employee Sues Standard Insurance

Gregory Dell — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:10:56 -0500

The Plaintiff, with the help of a California disability attorney, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court against Standard Insurance Company (Standard) and the Oscient Pharmaceuticals Corporation Employee Benefit Plan (Oscient). The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff did not continue to receive the disability benefits that she was entitled to under the Plan that she was eligible for due to her employment with Oscient.

In Christine W. Vs Standard Insurance Company, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit to gain the rightful disability benefits owed to her under the Plan that were not paid by Standard.

How Plaintiff Was Covered Under The Plan

Plaintiff worked for Oscient as a sales representative, which entitled her to be a participant in Group Insurance Policy Number 139943-B. This Plan would entitle Plaintiff to long term disability benefits equivalent to 67% of Plaintiff's monthly earnings minus any other income benefits beginning 90 days after the approval of a claim until Plaintiff's 65th birthday.

Plaintiff began suffering significant neck pain over several years. She also endured several treatments in an attempt to alleviate this pain, which continued to worsen over time. These treatments began on or about May 29, 2007 and continued until September 11, 2007. These treatments included two right sacroiliac joint block injections, a right L4, L5, S1 and medial branch nerve blocks, an MRI of her lumbar spine, a lumbar epidural steroid injection, and right S1 selective nerve root block.

Plaintiff continued to receive more treatments and have more visits with her physicians, but the pain continued to worsen. It was advised that she stay out of work until at least November 25, 2007 so that she could collect short term disability payments.

Plaintiff filed for long term disability payments, which was approved by Standard on or about March 12, 2008. Plaintiff was also granted life insurance waiver of premium on or about September 2, 2008. Treatments and more appointments occurred between May 21, 2009 and April 6, 2010.

Standard Decides To Cut Off Plaintiff's Long Term Disability Benefits

On or about August 16, 2010, Standard denied Plaintiff's claim for ongoing disability benefits beyond August 18, 2010. Plaintiff still continued to suffer from symptoms of severe neck pain, as evidenced by a follow-up examination by Tina L., MD on or about November 29, 2010.

On or about December 28, 2010, Plaintiff filed an appeal of Standard's denial. Plaintiff consulted with Regina N., MD regarding her increasing difficulties with fine motor movements, speech, and word-finding. This prompted Plaintiff to supplement her denial with a follow-up letter on or about February 11, 2011.

Despite two more follow-up examinations with two other physicians in February and April 2011, Standard denied Plaintiff's appeal on or about May 5, 2011. This has forced Plaintiff to file this lawsuit against Standard.

Merits of the Case Against Standard

This lawsuit was filed because Standard ignored the opinions of Plaintiff's treating physicians. Standard also did not give proper consideration of Plaintiff's medical records and her overall condition. Standard's denial of benefits was wrongful, capricious, arbitrary, and irrational.

The Relief Sought Against Standard

Due to the hardship experienced by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff requests following relief against Standard:

An award of unpaid benefits due to the Plaintiff from August 19, 2010 to the date of the judgment of this case
An award of all future payments so long as Plaintiff remains eligible under the terms of the Plan
An award of reasonable attorney fees
An award of all other relief that the Court deems appropriate

This Week on DIAttorney.com (04/07/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 07:47:17 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Are Independent Medical Evaluation (IME) Providers Really “Independent”?

After being twice denied continued disability benefits, an Addiction Medicine Physician, with the help of his California Disability Attorney, was forced to file a lawsuit against Hartford.

Disability Blog & Cases:
North Carolina Court Determines That Sedgwick Abused Their Discretion And Wrongfully Denied Disability Benefits For BellSouth Employee

A BellSouth Customer Service Assistant, with the help of his North Carolina Disability Attorney, was forced to file a lawsuit against Sedgwick after being denied continued disability benefits.

Disability Blog & Cases:
American Red Cross Worker Sues Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company For Wrongful Termination of Long Term Disability Benefits

In Joanne C. Vs Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the Plaintiff seeks the reinstatement of her long term disability benefit payments as defined by the terms of the Plan.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Two Takes on Fibromyalgia

A representative from the American Chronic Pain Association and a Fibromyalgia physician recently appeared on a local news station to discuss Fibromyalgia and methods for treating Fibromyalgia.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Total Knee Replacement, Yet Sedgwick Still Denies AT&T Employee’s Disability Claim

The unreasonable Sedgwick Claims Management disability denial of AT&T employees appears to be a daily occurrence. Recently, it seems as if Sedgwick does not feel the need to comply with ERISA regulations.

Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Sued By United Dairy Farmers Employee For Wrongful Termination of Long Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:06:10 -0500

In Daniel C. Vs Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit with the help of his Ohio Disability Lawyer for the termination of long term disability benefits that were promised under the Plan provided by Plaintiff's employer, United Dairy Farmers, Inc. (UDF).

History of the Plaintiff

Plaintiff worked at UDF from 1988 to 2006, seven years as a Store Manager, six years as an Area Supervisor, and five years as a Zone Manager for multiple UDF stores. Plaintiff was earning a monthly salary of $5,441.67 when he was unable to continue his work duties due to complications from human immunodeficiency virus disease (HIV).

Plaintiff's HIV led to his developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), as well as a related peripheral neuropathy of his lower extremities, which caused pain so severe that it required daily pain treatment with morphine, along with the multiple medications he needed to control his HIV.

Reliance approved Plaintiff's application for long term disability benefits according to the terms of the Plan in February 2007, with an effective date for benefits of December 18, 2006. In November 2009, Plaintiff was approved for total disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, with an effective date of March 2007. Reliance continued to pay LTD benefits to the Plaintiff through October 24, 2010.

Reliance Cuts Plaintiff Off From Further Long Term Disability Benefits

Via letter dated October 11, 2010, Reliance informed Plaintiff that a review of his medical records determined that he could do work at a sedentary level. Based on this, Reliance terminated future long term disability benefits effective October 24, 2010.

Plaintiff appealed this decision and presented additional records and comment from his primary care physician, a board certified family practice physician and specialist in the treatment of HIV and AIDS. The doctor concluded that the Plaintiff could work no longer than four hours per day. Additionally, his pain from peripheral neuropathy was only moderately controlled by the multiple narcotic medications he took, but these medications also caused added fatigue and concentration problems.

Reliance hired an occupational medicine specialist to perform a file review and independent medical examination of Plaintiff in July 2011. The Reliance IME physician concluded there was not sufficient information in the clinical record to support the plaintiff's doctor's peripheral neuropathy diagnosis or to confirm that the Plaintiff was actually taking the prescribed medications that caused his reported side effects. The IME physician stated that the Plaintiff was capable of light demand level, full-time work "if motivated."

As a result, of this review and examination, Reliance rejected Plaintiff's appeal on August 11, 2011. Due to the exhaustion of all administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Reliance.

Basis of Lawsuit Against Reliance

Plaintiff claims that Reliance unfairly, wrongfully and arbitrarily denied Plaintiff's claim for long term disability benefits despite the Plaintiff's submission of medical evidence from his primary care physician, a qualified specialist in his illness, that established that the Plaintiff remains unable to perform the duties of any full-time occupation.

Plaintiff Seeks Following Relief From Reliance

Plaintiff wants the Court to provide the following relief from Reliance:

All long term disability payments as defined by the terms of the Plan that have not been paid, along with accrued interest
Consequential damages and costs associated with this lawsuit
All reasonable attorney's fees associated with this lawsuit
All other relief that the Court finds proper and appropriate

This Week on DIAttorney.com (03/31/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:11:11 -0500

Resolved Cases:
AT&T Employee Dealing With Sedgwick Has Horrible Disability Benefit Claim Experience

Our client, an AT&T employee for more than 40 years became disabled and unable to do her job due to cervical myeolapathy neck pain, chronic headaches and a torn rotator cuff in her shoulder. Her claim for short term disability benefits under the AT&T disability benefits plan has been nothing but a “headache”. AT&T hires Sedgwick Claims Management to handle the administration of all disability benefit claims.

Disability Blog & Cases:
KeyCorp District Manager Sues The Prudential Insurance Company Of America For Improper Termination Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

A New York attorney recently filed a federal lawsuit against The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). The Plaintiff, Gaye D., was employed by KeyCorp as a District Manager/Area Retail Leader. Her employment enabled Plaintiff to be covered by KeyCorp’s long-term disability Plan, which was funded by Prudential.

Disability Blog & Cases:
DRS Technologies Employee Sues Prudential For The Wrongful Termination Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

An attorney from California recently filed a federal lawsuit against The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). The Plaintiff, Brian W., was employed as a Field Technician by DRS Technologies, Inc. (DRS). This employment entitled the Plaintiff to short-term and long-term disability benefits under DRS’ Disability Plan.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Court Compels Metlife To Reconsider Its Decision To Terminate Claimant's Long-Term Disability Benefits

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that MetLife's decision to deny benefits to a Plaintiff was unreasonable and ordered MetLife to reconsider Plaintiff's Long Term Disability claim.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Unum Tries To Hide Fact That Its “Independent” Medical Advisors Are Actually Employees Of Unum

This case sheds light on some of the questionable practices that some disability companies engage in when reviewing a disability claim.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Unum CEO Testifies At US Senate Hearing About Disability Insurance

On March 22, 2012, UNUM insurance company’s CEO Tom Watjen spoke at a United States Senate Committee hearing about the value of disability insurance coverage for individuals and the need for the private disability insurers and the government to work together in order to offer the coverage to more employees.

Is my disability policy regulated by ERISA?

Gregory Dell — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:08:43 -0500

ERISA is a federal law that governs most disability plans offered through employers and was enacted in part to make it more affordable for employers to offer long-term disability coverage and health insurance for employees. Unfortunately, ERISA tends to be an unfair law for disability insurance claimants.

The limitations and obstacles inherent to an ERISA regulated disability policy do not present themselves oftentimes until a claimant is faced with the unfortunate occasion of becoming disabled and unable to work. One such limitation is that an ERISA governed policy requires a claimant to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. This oftentimes only serves to prolong the time a disabled claimant must wait to receive benefits to which he or she is entitled. In the event that a claimant does file a lawsuit, under ERISA, a claimant is not entitled to a jury trial. The decision is therefore up to the judge who is usually limited to a review of the "claim file" under a standard requiring the judge to determine simply if the administrator acted unreasonably even if the judge thinks the claimant is in fact disabled.

Not surprisingly, disability insurers fight to have ERISA be the governing law over disability policy disputes.

In the case of Healy v. Minnesota Life Insurance Company, Dr. H. was a member of a medical group through which he obtained a disability policy administered by Minnesota Mutual. When Dr. H. and his disability lawyer sued Minnesota Mutual seeking long-term disability benefits, it was unsurprising when Minnesota Mutual argued that ERISA governed the policy.

Dr. H. argues his disability policy is not covered by ERISA

Dr. H. argued that his disability policy is not an "employee welfare benefit plan," and therefore not subject to ERISA, because the plan was not "established or maintained" by the employer. Specifically, Dr. H. argues that his employer:

Did not negotiate the terms of the policy;
Did not pay any portion of the premiums;
Did not participate in Dr. H's application for the policy; and
Had no involvement in the administration or submission of the claims.

According to Dr. H, his employer's only responsibility with regard to the policy was to forward his premium payments to the insurer. Ultimately, the court agreed with Dr. H. explaining that there was no evidence that Dr. H's employer had established or maintained the program with the purpose of providing benefits to its employees as required by the ERISA statute.

This Week on DIAttorney.com (03/24/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:11:11 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Microsoft Employee Sues Prudential For Wrongful Denial Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

A Washington lawyer just filed a federal lawsuit against The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential). The Plaintiff, Jewel T., worked as an Escalation Specialist for Microsoft. This employment entitled to the Plaintiff to short-term and long-term disability benefits via Microsoft’s Group Disability Insurance Plan that was funded by Prudential.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Toyota Quality Assurance Monitor Sues Life Insurance Company Of North America For Denial Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

A disability attorney in the state of Indiana recently filed a federal lawsuit in Indiana against Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) and Toyota Motor Long-Term Disability Plan (Toyota). The Plaintiff, Julie S., was employed by Toyota as a Quality Assurance Monitor, which made her eligible for Toyota’s long-term disability plan, which was funded by LINA.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Illinois Insurance Law Gives Claimant A Fighting Chance Against Disability Insurance Company

An Illinois district court refused to let Hartford, a disability insurance company, evade an Illinois law, which was enacted to protect consumers. The law was passed to basically “level the playing field” for insurance companies and the consumers that rarely have a fighting chance against these corporate giants.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Pennsylvania Court Awards STD Benefits And $27,000 In Attorneys’ Fees To Phlebotomist

A Pennsylvania court recently awarded $27,000 in attorneys’ fees to Ms. G. after she and her disability attorney won a judgment against Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”) also known as CIGNA for short-term disability (“STD”) benefits. This case is a good discussion of the analysis a court will go through in order to award attorney fees to a prevailing disability insurance claimant.

Lump Sum Buyouts: Savvy Or Foolish

Gregory Dell — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:37:54 -0500

Long term disability insurance provides the needed safety net to protect against disabling injury or illness. Some insurance companies offer a provision called a "lump sum buyout" which may be beneficial to the policy holder.

A lump sum buyout is the payment of funds in exchange for the surrender of one's long term disability policy. As a way to save money, insurance carriers calculate these buyouts based on the amount they project they will have to pay a claimant in the future, but at an overall reduced rate.

Each insurance company has their own methodology in determining the buyout amounts, however, there is a general principle that most insurance companies follow: if the lump sum buyout amount is less than the expected monthly payments, insurers will try to negotiate a buyout.

Lump sum buyouts are always at a discounted rate, which seems like it would be in an insurer's interest to continue to collect benefits instead of a lump sum payment. However, this is often not the case.

Let's examine the potential benefits of a lump sum buyout below:

Lump sum buyouts provide extra security for a claimant's family. Long term disability insurance policies contain no rights of survivorship that are commonly present in life insurance policies. To obtain a lump sum buyout, there is additional financial security in case of an emergency.
While receiving long term disability benefits, there's always a risk that benefits will be denied or cut off. With a lump sum buy out, there is a freedom to live without the constant fear of a denial.
The cash received in the lump sum buyout is often tax-free and free to use and further invest.
A claimant can return to work without hurting a claim or subject to the scrutiny of insurance companies.

It is essential to consult an attorney when planning a lump sum buyout. These are complicated processes which require the expertise of an attorney to negotiate the best possible lump sum settlement.

Anheuser-Busch, Harrah's, and DRS Technologies Employees Sue Prudential For The Wrongful Termination Of Short-Term Or Long-Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 07:09:30 -0500

The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) was sued in three separate cases in the Federal Courts of Missouri, Georgia, and Arizona for the wrongful termination of long-term disability benefits that are promised under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). In all three cases filed through the respective plaintiffs' disability lawyers, Prudential is accused of denying the Plaintiffs the short-term or long-term disability benefits that were promised under the Plaintiffs' respective plans.

The Missouri Case

In Mary J. Vs. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, a long-term disability lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff against Prudential via a Missouri disability attorney in the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division. The Plaintiff had been employed full-time by Harrah's Operating Company, Inc. (Harrah's) since 2000, making her eligible for long-term disability benefits through Harrah's Group Policy No. 42111 Plan. This Plan was insured by Prudential.

The Plaintiff ceased working in October 2007 due to degenerative arthritis of both knees and filed for long-term disability benefits. Prudential approved the claim on February 21, 2008. However, Plaintiff was notified on September 23, 2009 that she would no longer receive long-term disability benefits after February 20, 2010.

Plaintiff appealed the denial on February 9, 2010, but Prudential upheld the denial on August 30, 2010. Due to exhausting all administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Prudential.

The Georgia Case

In Deborah D. Vs. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff was employed as a Program Manager by DRS Technologies, Inc., which provided both short-term and long-term disability benefits via an insurance plan that was insured and paid for by Prudential.

Plaintiff became disabled on or about August 23, 2010, leading to her filing a timely short-term disability claim, along with medical documentation, with Prudential. Prudential initially approved the STD claim and paid Plaintiff through October 24, 2010.

However, beginning October 24, 2010, Prudential terminated Plaintiff's benefits on the basis that it had not received enough medical information to continue providing STD benefits. Plaintiff appealed this termination, but via letter dated March 7, 2011, Prudential upheld its original denial.

On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff again appealed and provided additional medical and vocational information to support her claim. However, on October 6, 2011, Prudential upheld its previous denials and declared that this decision was its final decision on the Plaintiff's claim. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and has filed this lawsuit against Prudential.

The Arizona Case

In Gerard L. Vs. Prudential Insurance Company of America and Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (Anheuser-Busch), Plaintiff was employed by Anheuser-Busch as a local employee until on or about March 31, 2009 when he became disabled and unable to work as a Senior Manager of Accounting due to serious medical conditions. This employment enabled the Plaintiff to be covered under Anheuser-Busch's group long-term disability insurance policy, which was funded by Prudential.

Plaintiff filed a disability application for Total and Permanent Disability and Group Life Insurance benefits under the terms of the Plan. Prudential denied his claim via letter dated December 14, 2010. Plaintiff filed an appeal of this decision and submitted additional medical evidence to support his claim. This included an Independent Medical Evaluation performed on January 26, 2010 that stated that Plaintiff would be unable to work for at least the next 12 months. In addition, Plaintiff applied for and received Social Security Disability benefits through the Social Security Administration.

Despite the additional evidence, Prudential upheld its original denial via letter dated March 23, 2011. Plaintiff again filed an appeal and submitted additional medical evidence. Prudential issued a final denial via letter dated August 1, 2011. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies and has filed this lawsuit against Prudential.

Relief Requested From The Lawsuits

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

Prudential pays all benefits that are owed to the Plaintiffs, along with accrued interest
Prudential reinstates the eligibility of Plaintiffs to receive future benefits for as long as they remain eligible to receive such benefits as defined by the terms of their respective Plans
Prudential pays all attorneys' fees
Prudential pays all associated court costs
Prudential pays all other relief that the Court deems to be fair and just

This Week on DIAttorney.com (03/17/2012)

Gregory Dell — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:11:10 -0500

Disability Blog & Cases:
Clopay Corporation Customer Service Representative Sues Prudential For The Wrongful Denial Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

An attorney recently filed a federal lawsuit in the Ohio district court against The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential) and Clopay Corporation Long-Term Disability Coverage (Clopay). The Plaintiff, Kimberly G., was employed as a Customer Service Representative at Clopay Corporation, providing her with short-term with Principal Financial and long-term disability benefits with Prudential.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Asurion Employee Files Lawsuit Against Life Insurance Company Of North America For Wrongful Termination Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

A lawyer from Colorado just filed a federal lawsuit in Federal Court of Colorado against the Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA). The Plaintiff, Carl E., was employed by Asurion. This made the Plaintiff eligible and covered by a group disability insurance plan provided by Asurion and administered and funded by LINA.

Disability Blog & Cases:
Court orders Life Insurance Company of North America to pay claimant long-term disability benefits

After failing to pay a LINA disability policyholder his entitled disability benefits the insurance company was forced by a New York court to follow through with its contractual obligations. Curt, a former employee of BorgWarner Morse TEC Inc. received long-term disability benefits under the group insurance policy issued by LINA. LINA later concluded the BorgWarner employee no longer met the definition of disabled under the policy and terminated his benefits.

Allstate Claim Senior Manager Sues Liberty Life For Wrongful Termination Of Long-Term Disability Benefits

Gregory Dell — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:01:00 -0500

An Illinois disability lawyer filed a federal lawsuit in Federal court against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty) and Allstate Cafeteria Plan (Allstate). The Plaintiff, William B., was employed by Allstate as a Claim Senior Manager. Due to this employment, Plaintiff was eligible to receive short-term and long-term disability benefits under the Allstate STD Program, which was funded by Liberty.

In William B. Vs. Liberty Life Assurance Company Of Boston and Allstate Cafeteria Plan, Plaintiff seeks payment of wrongfully terminated long-term disability benefits by Liberty.

Case Facts Against Liberty and Allstate

Plaintiff worked as a Claim Senior Manager for Allstate until February 17, 2010 when he stopped working due to a combination of several psychiatric impairments. Before he stopped working, Plaintiff filed a claim for short-term disability benefits under the Allstate STD Program, which was approved by Liberty. Plaintiff began receiving STD benefits from February 25, 2010 to July 7, 2010.

Liberty informed Plaintiff via letter on August 4, 2010 that he was also eligible to receive long-term disability benefits as of July 8, 2010. From August 19, 2010 to May 2011, Plaintiff also received LTD benefits from a separate LTD policy he had purchased on his own.

Termination of Long-Term Disability Benefits By Liberty

On May 5, 2011, Plaintiff was notified by Liberty that he would no longer receive LTD benefits after May 12, 2011. This denial was made primarily due to the results of a file review performed by a non-examining physician.

On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed an appeal of this denial, supplying additional evidence that he was still participating in an extended treatment plan and that his doctor refused to grant permission to the Plaintiff to return to work based on his current condition. Despite this additional evidence, Liberty denied the Plaintiff's appeal on September 9, 2011, again basing their decision on the file reviews conducted by non-examining physicians.

Due to the fact that all administrative remedies have been exhausted, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Liberty and Allstate.

Disability Lawyer Files Lawsuit Against Liberty And Allstate

According to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff claims that Liberty committed the following wrongful actions against the Plaintiff:

Terminating the Plaintiff's long-term disability benefits based on file reviews conducted by non-examining physicians
Failing to provide a full and fair review of the Plaintiff's claim
Failing to fully consider the Plaintiff's current medical condition, which is enough evidence for Prudential Insurance Company of America, payer of the Plaintiff's other LTD policy, to provide LTD benefit payments to the Plaintiff
Causing the Plaintiff financial hardship due to the wrongful termination of LTD benefits

The Following Relief Is Sought By The Plaintiff Against Liberty And Allstate

Due to the actions of Liberty and Allstate, Plaintiff requests the following relief to be granted by the Court:

To pay all owed long-term disability benefits
To pay all prejudgment interest on owed LTD benefits at a rate of 9% per annum
To pay all future LTD benefits as long as the Plaintiff remains eligible to receive them according to the terms of the Plan
To pay all reasonable attorney's fees
To pay all associated court costs
To pay all other relief that the Court deems proper and just