Quiat on Claims

Is This Our Last Fat Chance?

Michael Quiat — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:39:43 -0500

The most insidious threat to the entire U.S health system is as plain as the nose on America’s face. Obesity. We are getting fatter and fatter and along with that fat comes heart disease and diabetes and a whole slew of “baddies” too numerous to mention.

Skyrocketing medical costs to treat the results of the overeating epidemic endanger Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, so obesity statistics of this sort are most unwelcome. But, these statistics do sound an alarm which calls for immediate action.

One of the main reasons why obesity is getting a lot of attention now, according to a recent report by Reuters, is the recent finding that medical spending on obesity is actually double previous estimates and obesity costs exceed the medical costs of smoking.

The outlook for obesity is not promising. Overeating has become an important profit center for fast food chains, beverage producers and large farming corporations. In this “profits today and forget tomorrow” world we live in, little will be done voluntarily to cut off this devastating “caloric” avalanche. Will America’s health and insurance systems drown in a sea of fat?

When the nation decided to send a man to walk on the moon, we did it in 10 years. We have improved our medical knowledge to the point that people are living years more today than they did in 1960. Even “killer” smoking has been curtailed. These advances came because of a concerted effort by researchers, medical practitioners and government to conquer these medical scourges.

Why is obesity not being tackled with the same fervor? We know that habits are easy to form but hard to break. We know that food commerce puts constant pressure on people to eat the wrong foods that lead to obesity. Where is the leadership on this modern disease which stands a good chance of wrecking our health system?

It is easy to make jokes about “fat people”. It seems easy enough for some of us to cut down on food to make a dent in the waistline. Obviously this is not the case with many, many people as obesity becomes more of a problem each year. Most people do not want to be obese. If they could choose to be otherwise, they would.

If we are going to tackle this problem before we get crushed under its medical and financial weight, the time to do it is NOW! Medicine, the drug industry, the food industry (yes, you McDonalds) have to stop doing business as usual and opt for business that promises to curb low nutrition, high calorie food consumption, rather than sneak more and more calories into what we eat.

It will be an uphill fight. In a free country, it is hard to put limits on what a person eats. It is also hard to pay for the medical disaster that person eats his or her way into. Maybe the answer is a national motto which will magically turn a person off when faced with a “double” anything meal.

We are eating ourselves into the grave, but only after we squeeze the juice out of the health system. Allied medical industries have cured smallpox, polio, and diphtheria; have made and installed new knees, hips and are working on spinal parts, all through strenuous and united efforts.

This is the kind of effort obesity requires now before America sits down to dinner and can’t get up again.

(Your thoughts on how to attack this problem would be welcome. It is a tough nut.)

Being Human In The Doctor's Office

Michael Quiat — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:28:20 -0500

A recent post about an upcoming book got us thinking again about the relationship between doctors and patients, especially when a disability income claim is involved. DI claims require doctors to do more than just treat the patient. They must also be aware of the requirements of the patient’s occupation and have an opinion about how the patient’s illness or injury affects the ability of the patient to perform the duties of that occupation.

The post in Kevin Pho’s medical blog discussed how patients should conduct themselves in doctor’s offices with both the doctor and the doctor’s staff.

To sum it all up in two words: Be Nice. After all, it’s obvious to most of us that one of the last places we want to be disliked is a place where our health and well-being someday may be on the line.

One of the most potent paragraphs in the post was “Remember That Doctors Are Human Beings”. The paragraph went on to point out that doctors have personalities, families, feelings, good days, bad days, and social lives. Because of their duties, they often miss their kids’ soccer game, parent-teacher meetings, their own medical appointments and many social events that the rest of us take for granted.

So, Be Nice!

But, being nice is a 2-way street. The doctor and his staff should also be nice to patients, especially a disability income insurance patient who is probably battling a monster insurance company with no income and an uncertain working future.

Doctors are used to making reports about a patient’s medical condition and sometimes offer a prognosis which they and their patients believe to be reasonable, both of them understanding that prognoses are just educated guesses.

But, when reporting to an insurance company on a disability insurance claim, more care is required. A physician’s informed guess will become the law of the claim, if it suits the insurance company’s interests and that guess will be used against the patient’s interests no matter what the doctor says about the patient’s actual condition thereafter.

What we mean to say here is that doctors have to be careful about what they say to insurance companies when reporting on a patient’s condition or prognosis. Physicians have to understand that an insurance company is looking to find a way NOT to pay on its policy. With that thought in mind, doctors can see how important their reports are in a claim based on physical or mental disability.

Insurance companies have a natural tendency to think that all disability income claimants are “dogging” it. It is part of the insurance industry culture. So, we can see that if a disability end date is predicted by a physician and it doesn’t work out that way, the patient is stuck with the prediction because the insurer will be sure throw it up at every stage of the proceedings.

One trick insurers have is putting a small date box for the answer to the question of when a patient will be able to go back to work. Most physicians assume the company wants their best estimate if things go normally, so they answer with just a date in the form the box allows. Truth is, though, the insurer just wants a date so that if things don’t go normally and the patient still can’t work when the date passes, the insurance company can turn the screws on the patient by throwing the date up to the patient time and time again in the claims battle.

Patients should treat doctors and their staffs as human beings because they are and have the same needs as we do.

Likewise, doctors should know that insurance claimant patients are usually in the fight of their lives with insurance companies. They need to take the extra time and care to provide complete and accurate medical information, indicating clearly that they don’t know the answer to a question if they don’t.

Loose lips sink ships. They can also sink a patient’s legitimate disability claim.

The Cold Comfort Of Insurance

Michael Quiat — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:04:28 -0500

In the normal course of our lives, most of us learn to give people the benefit of the doubt, at least sometimes. Insurance companies never do. The reason – money.

Why this is so devastating to many people is that they learn this fact after they have been stricken with a disease or disability which seriously affects their lives. For all of their existence they have been told that insurance is meant to protect them and make them feel more comfortable should a disaster strike. Then disaster strikes and they learn the awful truth – the insurer won’t pay!

It really is simple arithmetic – every dollar the insurer keeps in unpaid claims is a dollar that goes to insurer profits. And, PROFIT, only PROFIT is the name of the of business today.
Owning an insurance policy used to give a policyholder some sense of comfort knowing that if the worst happened, an insurance company would be standing at their side and lending a hand according to the terms of their policy. Not so in today’s totally profit-centered world.

A perfect case in point is that of John Bray who had the gross misfortune to develop a brain tumor while employed as a division head for a travel company. As happens in many such cases, he didn’t consciously know there was anything wrong with him, but his conduct and behavior began to change on the job, leading to his ultimate dismissal.
Being unaware of his tumor, Mr. Bray tried to work as a consultant, but his behavior continued to deteriorate.

When he was finally diagnosed with a large malignant tumor in the brain, he had been dismissed from his employment for about 8 months. The overwhelming medical evidence was that he had suffered from the tumor which affected his behavior for a long period prior to the time he was dismissed.

Mr. Bray then filed for long term disability benefits under the group LTD policy which covered him as an employee f the travel company. But the insurer denied Mr. Bray’s claim, saying he was no longer covered by the policy once his employment terminated.

Did the insurer offer any medical evidence to refute the claimant’s medical findings? Of course, not. The insurer knew the truth of the matter so it didn’t even ask for a medical exam. Did that stop the insurance company from continuing to deny John Bray’s claim? Of course, not.

The insurer continued to insist that Mr. Bray had left his employment before becoming disabled, despite a clear showing by all examining experts in the field that he was stricken with his ultimately fatal illness before he left his covered employment and therefore was entitled to benefits.

The evidence was that John Bray was an outstanding employee prior to the time he was stricken with the brain tumor which enlarged relatively quickly. The tumor caused his employment behavior to change radically and, as a result, his employment was terminated.

Clinging to the fact that Mr. Bray’s brain tumor was not discovered for several months after he left his employment, the insurance company said he was no longer an employee and therefore not entitled to coverage. Not only that, Mr. Bray’s employer had also afforded him a life insurance policy as part of his employee package of benefits and the company refused to pay on the life policy because it claimed he had left his employment before he died.

The court, on the basis of the clear evidence before it, ordered the company to pay Bray’s estate the disability income benefits and the life insurance benefit.

Two things you can glean from the policyholder’s trials and tribulations in this case:

* If you become afflicted with a disabling disease which stays hidden until after you have terminated your employment, you probably face a long uphill fight with your insurer.
* If you should happen to be so unlucky, don’t give up. Fight for your rights.

“Wimping” out is not an option for you or your family.

Deference Ploy Is Defeated

Michael Quiat — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:35:16 -0500

As readers of this column are well aware, insurance companies are “stodgy” and “old-fashioned” only when it comes to paying claims. When it comes to defending against claims, insurers are swift, inventive and show very little, if any, conscience.

Even experienced disability income lawyers, are amazed at the lengths insurers will go to try to circumvent laws designed to level the playing field for claimants and policyholders.

A case in point is Curtis v. Hartford Life, 2012 WL 138608 (N.D.Ill.) which illustrates the latest tactic of some insurance companies in trying to undo the protection afforded by state legislatures to protect their citizens against the discretionary language rule in ERISA litigation. For more on discretionary language.

A U.S. Supreme Court case, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) holds that employers, by adding a few words in their ERISA plan, can give a plan administrator, which is usually the insurance company which would have to pay the claim, discretion to decide whether or not a claim is valid. More importantly, Firestone requires reviewing courts to give deference to that decision. For more on deference.

Unless the claimant can show the denial by the insurer was “arbitrary and capricious”, a very tough burden, courts are forced by Firestone to go along with the denial of benefits, even if the court feels the denial is wrong.

To make the cheese even more binding, ERISA preempts state action in ERISA matters, one of the few exceptions being the wording of policies.

For too long, Firestone gave insurance companies the best of the bargain. Then, several years ago, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (insurance officials from the 50 states) drafted a model rule for prohibiting the use of discretionary language in policies. In states which have adopted that rule, discretionary language is no longer permitted in policies issued in that state. Gone is this free ride for insurers.

At first, insurance companies attacked the policy language prohibitions as actually being covered by ERISA and, therefore preempted. This attack was foiled by Standard Ins. Co. v. Morrison, 584F.3d 837(9th Cir. 2009), in which the court upheld the state’s right to determine the language of insurance policies issued in its state and held such power exempt from ERISA preemption.

Since the preemption argument didn’t work, Hartford tried something else:
It used an insurance trust that was set up in Maryland, a state which doesn’t have a rule prohibiting discretionary language in policies (citizens of Maryland, why do you permit this?).

Hartford then had the trust issue the policy to the Curtis’s employer in Illinois, taking the position that the discretionary language prohibition does not apply because the policy is issued in Maryland, not Illinois. For good measure, Hartford added policy language that the policy was to be interpreted according to Maryland law which does not prohibit discretionary language.

However, the court did not buy this “misdirection” ploy, clever as Hartford thought it might be. The court found the tactic a subterfuge, and found that the actual terms of the insurance contract was the relationship between the insured’s employer and the insurance company. Therefore, the policy language was subject to the Illinois discretionary language prohibition.

As to Hartford’s claim that the policy called for Maryland law to prevail, the court said no, citing the Illinois State Supreme Court’s decision in Hofeld v. Nationwide Life, 332 N.E. 2d 454 (1975) , which held that such a choice of law provision would be upheld so long as no provision of the insurance policy was in conflict with the public policy of the state. In this case there was a clear conflict with the public policy of Illinois which prohibits discretionary language.

But, never fear. In their never-ending battle to pay as few claims as possible, insurers are bound to come up with new ways to try to resuscitate the deference “hammer” that Firestone v. Bruch provides for them.

To Tweet Or Not To Tweet?

Michael Quiat — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:08:54 -0500

“That’s a great picture of you on Facebook, dancing on the table. We really got a kick out of it. Oh, and by the way, your disability insurance benefits are terminated as of last Friday.”

This is the reality of social media in today’s disability insurance claim wars. Photographs and information that you post online can be seen not only by your friends and family, but by everyone, including insurance claim defense attorneys and adjusters.

Anyone with an adversary out in the great beyond has to be aware that when they go online their life becomes an open book, particularly when they post on social media, because this is when they put on a “happy face” for friends and family.

Beware, insurance companies and their minions are on the prowl for anything posted by or about a claimant which may in any way throw a disability claim into question. Once an insurance company sees such a post, you may be sure it will try to use it to torpedo a claim.

Insurance companies are not behind the times. They turn to social-networking sites and social-media data to find out all they can about their policyholders’ behavior and activities. They are looking for any excuse to deny claims.

Fun is fun and everyone enjoys a good laugh. But, it’s not a hoot when an insurer takes a 30-second video clip and tries to turn it into a lifetime of no benefits for you. A truly disabled person may be able to perform certain functions normally for a minute or even longer, but can they perform that function 8 hours a day, 5 days a week? Insurance companies just need a 30-second video clip to ignore that question and go for the jugular of your claim.

Getting benefits from insurers is difficult enough without adding that 30-second video to the mix. Be aware that what you or your friends make public, is public forever and insurance companies are constantly on the prowl for anything that will make a claim look bad.

If you wouldn’t want to tell or show an insurance claims adjuster something, don’t post it on Facebook, Twitter or any of the other social networks.

There is a very good chance that it will wind up in your insurance claim file.

So, think before you post. The claim you save may be your own.

Ban IME "GOTCHAS"

Michael Quiat — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:02:46 -0500

Last October we warned disability claimants about a favorite ploy of insurance companies – taking surveillance videos of claimants on the day they are scheduled for an IME. Insurers love videos because they find that if they can catch a claimant doing anything he or she says they are unable to do, some courts are impressed enough by such evidence as to uphold an otherwise shaky benefit denial.

This is especially true if the court feels constrained to give discretion to the plan administrator which is very often the same insurance company which would have to pay the claim if it is upheld. For more on this see.

We like to call this the “Gotcha!” ploy. If insurance companies see you make what they think is a wrong move on video tape, your benefits come to a screeching halt.

Don’t misunderstand us. We don’t have any argument with insurance companies gathering evidence against a faker who tries to collect disability claim benefits fraudulently. Insurers should fight these claims tooth and nail.

On the other hand, insurance companies should not, as they seem to, consider everyone who makes a claim a faker.

A recent case illustrates how far insurance companies will go to use a video in an attempt to put the lie to a claim of disability, In Maher v. Massachusetts General Hospital Long Term Disability Plan, 2011 WL 6061347 (C.A.1 (Mass.))) , a registered nurse claimed she had to stop working because of chronic, disabling stomach pain and the side effects caused by the strong amounts of narcotics she had to use to control the pain. Although her doctors were unable to pin down the exact cause of her pain, they all were certain that she actually was suffering the pain.

Nurse Maher said she could perform some activity from time to time, but said she spent most of her time in bed. After paying benefits for 5 years during which the company videotaped her for 6 days in 2002, 3 days in 2005 and 10 days in 2006, the plan administrator, Liberty Life Assurance of Boston, yelled “Gotcha” and stopped her benefits.

On 10 of the 19 days during which she was photographed, she engaged in no activity. On the other 9 days, she was photographed sitting or standing outside of her home. Out of the entire 90 hours she was before the camera, there were about 15 minutes when she was seen carrying a bucket or pot and 30 minutes when she was seen playing with her children.

Surprise, surprise! The insurer’s doctors (who had never examined Nurse Maher although she offered to submit to an exam) all jumped on the video as proof that the claimant wasn’t disabled and that she could reliably perform a full-time sedentary job.

After careful analysis the 3-judge court found for the claimant, but split on the remedy. Two judges ordered the matter sent back to the District Court, which had found for the insurance company, for further consideration of the claim, while the dissenting judge felt the denial of benefits was so wrong that the court should immediately reinstate them.

In supporting the claim, the court approved language in a case involving a Social Security appeal, Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F. 3d 751(7th Cir. 2004), where the court found there is a sharp difference between a person being able to perform sporadic household and family duties and being able to work 8 hours a day for 5 consecutive days of the week).

Although insurance companies benefit big time when they can cut off a disability income claim midstream, they should realize it is not a game of “Gotcha”. Real people are hurting and their families are suffering.

It is not any kind of game at all.

Common Sense In ERISA

Michael Quiat — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:55:38 -0500

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals applied a little ERISA common sense recently and came up with a decision that does justice when it comes to medical expense reimbursement. The court ruled that an ERISA claim administrator’s rights are subject to “appropriate equitable relief” under 29 USC 503(a)(3) and that the word “appropriate” has real meaning.

Just about every ERISA plan has reimbursement provisions which provide that the plan is subrogated to an insured’s claim against a third party and that the plan has the right to recover any amounts it paid to the insured out of any monies the insured may recover from a third party for the same losses.

That was the situation in US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, 2011 WL5557411 (C.A.3(Pa.)). McCutchen, the insured, was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident in which several others died or also suffered severe injuries. Since the negligent driver did not have adequate insurance to cover all of the damages of the accident, McCutchen settled his claim for a total of only $110,000.

US Airways, McCutchen’s employer and the administrator of his Health Insurance Plan, had laid out $66,866 for McCutchen’s medical and hospital expenses, as required by his ERISA policy. After McCutchen settled his third party claim US Airways sought to recoup from those funds the $66,866 it had previously paid in medical expenses. But, McCutchen, after paying his lawyers and expenses of suit, was left with less than $66,000 from his settlement. Yet, US Airways insisted on full reimbursement of the $66,866 it had laid out.

It is important to note that although the plan administrator had the right of subrogation, (the right to sue the negligent party for the money it had paid McCutchen), US Airways chose to let the insured carry the ball and did not exercise its rights. Most plan administrators take this position. They let the insured lay out the time and money to sue and collect from the wrongdoer. Then the plan administrator just comes in at the end to take back their money without having all the hassle and expense of trying to collect from the third party.

The 3rd Circuit said, “Not so fast”. When McCutchen argued that US Airways’ claim for reimbursement was limited to “appropriate equitable relief”, the court agreed that forcing McCutchen to pay the full amount requested would amount to unjust enrichment for U.S. Airways. Therefore, the court sent the matter back to the District Court (which had earlier granted summary judgment to US Airways for the full amount) to determine what would constitute “appropriate” equitable relief for US Airways.

Other circuits, notably the 5th, 7th, 8th and 11th do not give much weight to the word “appropriate” and allow a result which the 3rd Circuit would call “unjust enrichment”. Insurance companies and other plan administrators love this because it puts the entire burden of obtaining and paying for recoveries against third parties squarely on the insured. Then, once the money is collected, the insurers and plan administrators stick out their hands and automatically collect their money without having expended a dollar in legal fees and costs, or an ounce of sweat in getting the money back.

Hopefully, the good sense and sound arguments of McCutchen will persuade circuits which pay too little attention to the word “appropriate” in addressing claims for equitable relief under ERISA, to come around to this more equitable position.

When they do, it will force plan administrators to get off their butts and help insureds,
both financially and effort-wise to collect from wrongdoers.

That would truly be “appropriate equitable relief”.

Hope Springs Eternal...

Michael Quiat — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:56:08 -0500

We come to the end of another year and nothing much has changed for disability income insurance claimants.

* Insurance companies are just as focused on denying claims as they ever were.
* Disabled policyholders are still put through a “meat grinder” when it comes to trying to establish a claim.
* Insurers maintain their “gotcha” attitude, nit picking at every little item they can lay their fingers on to try to build a case for denial.
* None of the big boys – UNUM, Prudential, MetLife, Cigna seem to be improving their claim “approval” scores.
* “Independent” Medical Exam (IME) doctors still mainly feed at the insurance company table, making it extremely unlikely that they are “independent”.
* People who earn a living by working or in the professions still are getting short shrift from insurers at the worst time in their lives – when they become disabled and have no income.

With all of the advances in technology over the past dozen years, one would hope for even a smidgen of an advance in the social outlook of insurance companies vis-a-vis their insureds.
No such luck. The ages old insurance battle is still a battle.

What we can do about it is what we have always done about it – give our clients what we see as the best legal advice and help and as much moral support as we possibly can.

What we can hope for is a realization by the insurance industry that unreasonable reluctance to pay disabled policyholders, who are down and out, what their policies call for, is immoral and not in their long term best interests.

A New Year brings new hope, forlorn as it may be.

Prescription For Doctors

Michael Quiat — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:24:38 -0500

Doctors have more problems with disability income insurance claims than most other occupations, because:

* They never read their disability policy until they have to make a claim. * Policy benefits are usually higher because they make more money.

* They are too busy to change coverage when their situation changes.

* Their duties as physicians are more likely to change because of specialization or increase in skills.

* The terms of their policy are so complex that they don't truly understand them.

This medical profession problem was succinctly pointed out by T Keith Mangrum of Medical Group Insurance Services, Inc., click here, when she pointed out 10 things a doctor doesn't want to hear when making a claim, in an article in MD Preferred,click here, an online publication for physicians. While the article dealt well with the front end of the MD disability claims process, it did not deal with the back end, i.e., what does a doctor do when faced with a denial of a legitimate disability benefits claim?

As we have said many times before, disability insurance companies have a litany of "reasons" why they should not pay benefits. Some of these reasons have a foundation in law and some do not. Since the policy is the contract which governs the insurance relationship, it is the law of the claim and dictates the rights of the doctor to receive benefits and the insurance company to refuse to pay.

So, the first thing every doctor should do is READ THE DISABILITY INCOME POLICY NOW!!! Doctors, of all people, are aware that illness or injury can strike without warning, at any time of the day or night. No one is immune to catastrophe. After reading the policy, if the full meaning isn't clear, get someone who knows, like a knowledgeable lawyer, to help you understand.

Once disaster strikes, the doctor is stuck with the terms of the policy and can't change them. If the policy doesn't afford enough coverage there's nothing to be done about it. Reading and understanding the policy before the doctor has to make a claim should help take care of the front end. What about the back end - if there is a denial?

As we have pointed out here so many times, insurance companies are adept and motivated to throw roadblocks in the path of benefits seekers even when their reasons for denying a claim sometimes border on the ridiculous. Insurers do so because they know a certain percentage of claimants will give up and allow the insurer to drop what they should have paid in benefits to the company's bottom line.

The stakes in a physician's disability income insurance policy are usually high and give the insurance company more reason to contest the claim. Before a doctor gives up on such a claim it must be absolutely clear that the claim denial is legitimate .

This goes double when the claim is covered by a group policy, purchased by an employer, of which the physician has no firsthand knowledge. To have the policy explained to the doctor by a Human Resources manager who works for the employer and who has no legal understanding of arcane ERISA insurance law and the sometimes questionable tactics of insurance companies, may not be the best thing for the policyholder. So, what is the best thing?

First, read and completely understand the disability income policy. Does the protection it affords them and their family do the job? If not, they should make the desired changes before disaster strikes. And, if they ever should be so unfortunate as to have to make a claim for disability benefits, they definitely should not take an insurer's claim denial as gospel. It is in insurance company genes to almost automatically reply to a claim with a denial, hoping the claimant will "wimp" out and go away.

Doctors know medicine, but they are not experts in insurance law and claims. Don't stand alone. Get a veteran, knowledgeable disability claims lawyer to review your situation and give you an opinion on the validity of the denial.

Only then can the doctor make an intelligent diagnosis of a disability income benefits claim.

The Personal Touch

Michael Quiat — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 12:16:30 -0500

The personal touch. We hear about it all of the time, but what exactly is it? The question is particularly pertinent when one practices disability income insurance law.

A recent post by Dr. Len Schwartz on the Pro2Pro Network, cite, reminded us of the little things we can do as lawyers to make our clients feel better about us and for them to have more confidence in how we handle their matters.

Dr. Schwartz, who has a wealth of ideas for how small businesses and professional practices can raise their “notice” factor, suggested to his followers that they make a first visit nighttime call to a new patient or client, asking if he could enlarge on or clarify any material they had discussed earlier that day.

He pointed out such calls would have two primary effects:

One effect would be to stimulate word of mouth about you. (After all, who ever heard of a lawyer taking the time to be certain a new client understands what is going on?)

The second effect would be an opportunity to get the relationship off to a great start. It would pump up the relationship and give the lawyer an opportunity to greatly improve the connection with this client.

The suggestion by Dr. Schwartz reminded us of the rare experiences we have had with doctors and dentists who had the interest and courtesy to call us the evening after
a painful or long procedure to ask us how we were doing.

Just the thought that this professional, who is very busy, took the time after a long and busy day to inquire about how we were feeling, put that professional head and shoulders above the others. The doctor took the time to call, ergo, he or she really cares!

This resonated with us on two levels. The first was that lawyers don’t do this with long-time clients, let alone new ones, even when they have discussed a complicated legal question during the day’s visit. From our own experience, it struck us, on reflection, that no matter how well we thought we understood the topic of discussion, when given time to think about it, further questions came to mind.

We all have had unpleasant medical or dental experiences. Sometimes, though rarely, a dentist or doctor will call in the evening of such an experience to ask how we are doing. When that happens, the rough edges of the day’s experience start to smooth and we have a warmer feeling toward the doctor or dentist who calls. We think- he or she cares and wants to help.

Why shouldn’t the same apply to lawyers? Our work doesn’t usually deal in physical pain. But, most of the time there is a load of mental pain and anguish for our clients. Why wouldn’t our call to a new client or an older one after a conference, with an offer to clarify any questions they might have, have the same value to that client?

Attorneys should develop this personal touch. When they hear the gratitude of clients for taking the extra time to try to help, it will make them feel better about what they do and how they do it.

If an attorney needs more reason to make that call, the lawyer can be sure the client will talk to others about the call. And, that can’t hurt.

However, there is one caveat: Make certain the client knows you are NOT billing them for your time on the call!

See More on Who Mike Is and What He Does

Don't Fish For Disability Trouble

Michael Quiat — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 12:38:17 -0500

Life is really strange sometimes. We were reading the paper last Sunday when we came across an insurance company advertisement which struck us as relevant to the insured as well.

The full page ad for Chubb Insurance pictured a lone fisherman in a rowboat placidly fishing on a quiet lake. His back was to a nearby waterfall towards which he was drifting. The caption was “Who insures you doesn’t matter. Until it does”. The unwritten message was “Buy your insurance from Chubb or you may face consequences when a claim made against you.”

It really caught our eye because it applies as much to what we try to tell claimants as it does to what the insurance company tries to sell, i.e., “Disability income insurance claimants don’t need experienced legal help, until they do”. Unfortunately, by then it may be too late.

We sound this warning time after time, not just because we are in the business, but because having done disability income claims work for 30 years, we know most all of the pitfalls and traps set before a claimant by insurance companies. (They always come up with new ones which even we haven’t seen yet).

The worst part for claimants is that the biggest trap is laid right at the start of the claims process. While most people, including attorneys not experienced in ERISA and disability income claims, believe an initial claim form is just a notice that a claim is to be made, in reality, the first disability claim form must be accurate and contain complete information necessary to support such a claim.

Failure to properly notify the carrier of a claim will certainly lead to a denial of the claim and be used by the insurer to attack the claim throughout the appeal proceedings. Any misstatement or omission will be thrown up again and again by the company in an attempt to impugn the claim. Full details and accuracy are a must, starting with the first claim form.

A checklist of data which should be included, is:

* Complete details of the injury or illness upon which ther claim is based.
* Complete description of the claimant’s job duties.
* The claimed medical reasons why claimant can no longer perform those duties.
* Full hospital and physician reports to support the claim.
* Occupational testing which supports the claim.

Leaving out or making a mistake on any of the above will be cited over and over throughout the proceedings as proof that the claim is unfounded and should be denied.
It is difficult enough to try to establish a disability income claim. Why make it even harder by giving the insurance company a home run on your first pitch?

Just as the insurance company advises (although unwittingly):
You don’t need an experienced disability claims lawyer…until you do!

You Only Get One Shot At An ERISA Claim

Michael Quiat — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:34:50 -0500

Sometimes in writing about ERISA and private disability claims we tend to get into the finer points of insurance claims law and downplay the basics, which are frequently more important in pursuit of such a claim.

The big thing to remember is that insurance companies fight these battles hundreds, if not thousands, of times a day. You have just one shot to get it right.

In this post we are going to try to outline what should be done in the ordinary case when a claim situation arises.

If you think that an injury or illness which prevents you from doing your job may develop into a longer-term disability which might trigger payments under your ERISA or private disability policy, be certain to retain all papers, reports, prescriptions, X-rays, medical and hospital bills involved in the course of that medical incident.

These materials should be maintained for a reasonable period of time if there is a possibility that this injury or illness may recur in future and lead to a claim.

Should you have to file a claim, understand that this is one of the most important parts of the claims procedure. Don’t be lazy or sloppy. The assumption by claimants that they can correct an omission or error on their claim form later, has sunk more disability claims than there are wrecks on the ocean floors of the world.

Your first claim form, if not carefully and properly completed in accord with the terms of your policy, seriously undermines your chances of collecting, even if you have a claim that seems to you indisputable!

Many insureds, because they are not warned otherwise, assume that they are providing that their application for benefits to an impartial reviewer and that their feet will not be held to the fire if they make a mistake. WRONG!!!

Many times, especially under ERISA, the very insurance company which will have to pay you benefits has the right to determine whether or not your claim is covered by their policy. (Guess which way these insurance companies lean in deciding this question?). And, to top it off, their decision is given deference by the courts.

Not only that, you can bet your bottom dollar that if your claim is ever reviewed by a court, the errors of what you omitted or misquoted on your original application will be thrown up to the court time and time again.

So, if in making an ERISA claim, you start off by omitting an important document or medical report or if your physician is sloppy in reporting the facts and nature of your disability, you can be certain that error or omission will haunt you throughout the proceeding. Get it right the first time!!!

When you are unable to work, making a claim for income, perhaps for the rest of your life, is not the time to take chances and hope for the best. You get only one bite at this apple. Make sure you put your best teeth forward!

If you have any qualms about your ability to present all aspects of your disability claim in its best and fairest light, get help from an experienced disability claim lawyer.

It is not wise to stand alone in this fight. You and your family have too much to lose.

What Your Lawyer Don't Know Can Hurt You

Michael Quiat — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:12:16 -0500

For years we have been dying to tell ERISA disability income and other types of insurance claimants that they need a lawyer with solid experience to press insurance claims. We were reluctant to do so, however, because it might look as if we were blowing own horn and overreaching to try to get claims business.

However a recent blog post written by a respected ERISA employer defense attorney points out, http//www.bostonerisalaw.com/archives/benefit-litigation-denial-of-benefit-claims-the-repeat-player-and-saving-money-on-litigation.html, many employers lose a substantial legal advantage in denying employee and other claims, particularly ERISA claims, because they don’t have attorneys who know ERISA insurance claims law.

If what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, this goes even more so for claimants who are represented by attorneys not experienced in disability insurance and ERISA law. To get a fair shake on both sides, you need attorneys on both sides who are intimately familiar with insurance claims law.

The Rosenberg blog’s advice was obviously meant for employers which may have only a few ERISA claims to deal with. Larger employers with more claims would almost certainly have attorneys who are well versed in ERISA claims law. And, it goes without saying that insurance companies that offer policies in the ERISA field would have loads of lawyers who know ERISA law and how to negotiate and defend ERISA claims.

So, why do employee-claimants many times go to their friendly neighborhood lawyer to handle their ERISA claims? Because, they have no idea of the complexity of the ERISA statute and the sometimes convoluted precedents of insurance claims law generally. This is a case of “what you don’t know can hurt you.”

Mr. Rosenberg, who mainly represents employers, talks of the “repeat player” (one who has handled ERISA claims over and over again) and the obvious difference in the knowledge and ability of the “repeat player” in handling an ERISA claim. He says, “…”I routinely see the difference when, on the other side…is a lawyer who regularly represents plan participants in such disputes, as opposed to a general practice lawyer who represents plan participants only occasionally”.

ERISA claimant rights were created solely by Federal statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. They did not evolve from common law. General principles of common law may not automatically apply under the ERISA statute. So, a lawyer should have a good working knowledge of this specific statute and the case law which it has engendered to effectively represent a claimant.

Further, the law of insurance policy claims, in general, has many twists and turns which are exceptions to the common law. A claimant should consider this fact wisely before selecting an attorney to handle an insurance claim.

Just to blow our own horn, now that Mr. Rosenberg has opened the door for us, we specialize in handling complex insurance matters, particularly disability income, ERISA, life and long term care claims and claim denials. We have handled hundreds and hundreds of such claims in our 30 years at the bar and, we really enjoy doing this type of legal work.

To be fair, we are not the only ones who savor this calling. There are others throughout the country who do the same work with the same fervor.

Thanks to Mr. Rosenberg, our conscience is clear in writing this post. The aim is not to blow our horn. The aim is to blow a bugle to alert insurance claimants to consult with experienced legal counsel when fighting an insurance claim, especially one involving ERISA.

An IME Means Camera Time

Michael Quiat — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:35:17 -0500

You might be very happy when an insurance company asks you to undergo an IME. An IME (so-called “Independent” Medical Exam) means that, a live doctor will look at you, examine you and talk to you, before writing a report to the company which usually says you are not disabled.

However, you should know that on the day you are to present yourself for the examination, Big Brother (your insurance company), will likely be watching you on camera, waiting for you to make a false move they can use to try to scuttle your claim.

How do we know that IME day is likely to bring out the video camera? Because video surveillance of claimants is expensive and insurance companies don’t want to waste money sending a surveillance unit out when they are uncertain about whether you are home and, if you are, whether you emerge or do anything they can photograph during the time they are there.

But, when an IME is scheduled, the insurer knows that you will have to come out of the house to go to their doctor, so if they have a unit at your home, they know they are going to get some video of you in action. And, they hope their camera will catch you doing something they can use to argue that you are fit to work so they can stop paying benefits.
It doesn’t take much for an insurer to claim you can do some kind of work. For example, if they see you lifting anything, they will claim that you are fit to work on a loading dock.

Most courts are smart enough to realize that if a person is caught on film for a minute, doing something he or she was not ordinarily able to do, it doesn’t mean that person can do the task over and over for an hour, a day or a week. This is especially so if the person has presented solid medical evidence of an illness or injury which clearly would prevent him or her from doing so.

Given that an IME may be anything but “independent”, a client should be prepared to meet whatever obstacles are put in the way on examination day. The claimant should assume that the examining doctor, hired by the insurer, is not out to do the claimant any favors. The doctor is out to shoot down the claim if at all possible. And to some doctors “possible” stretches all the way to the stratosphere.

But, it is also true that sometimes a picture can appear to be compelling evidence even it does not truly reflect the reality of an impairment. The point is: Be aware that you are fair game for surveillance, especially when the carrier knows where you will be and when you will be there.

IMEs present the insurer with an ideal opportunity to spy on you and you can assume that they won’t pass up the opportunity.

What claimants can do to level the examination playing field is:

* Bring a witness to the exam and have the witness take notes of the entire procedure.
* Bring a good watch and write an exact time line of the visit, from the time you arrive at the examination site to the time you leave.
* The notes should contain the exact length of time each phase takes, i.e., waiting time, interview time, examination time, discussion, exit time.
* Write out a complete description of the IME as soon after it concludes as possible, when your memory is still fresh.
* Make a note of the name and occupation (medical doctor, physician’s assistant, registered nurse, nurse’s aide, technician) of each person who conducts each part of the examination visit (welcome, history, interview and review of your medical records, testing, and actual examination, detailing what is actually done by the examiner).

Your witness’s and your notes can be used by your attorney to keep the examining doctor’s testimony accurate, if there is a trial. If you don’t keep accurate and timely notes, much of the detail of the visit and the examination will be lost to memory. That situation would leave the courtroom playing field to the IME doctor and you have to know that that person is not inclined to do you any favors.

Now Is The Time

Michael Quiat — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:34:13 -0500

A recent case we read which has nothing to do with disability income insurance reminded us once again that all policyholders, particularly disability income policyholders, must read and understand the terms of their policies carefully to make certain they have the protection they want.

The case we are referring to is American Automobile Insurance Company v. Murray, et als, 2011 WL 3966114 (C.A.3 Pa.))). The case basically concerned technical judicial procedural matters, but the underlying gist was that an insurance broker failed to provide a policyholder with proper coverage advice, thereby causing the policyholder loss.

The insurance broker failed to advise a beer distributor to include an alcoholic beverage clause in its comprehensive liability policy coverage. And, of course there was an alcohol-induced accident fatal to a third party.

Whether this basic error was caused by lack of knowledge, inattention, or simply a desire to close the policy sale and make a commission, the policyholder was left with no insurance to defend or pay a judgment. Cases such as this clearly support our continuing mantra – “Read and understand your insurance policy”.

What’s the point of having and paying for a policy which you were told covers you, but doesn’t? Insurance agents are human and have human frailties. Most won’t admit lack of knowledge or uncertainty; inexperience; inattention; failure to understand your needs and desires and, perhaps, an overwhelming need for money in their personal lives which affects their business judgment. Under such circumstances, mistakes are often made and policyholders may suffer.

Disability income insurance policies have a greater potential for such errors because of the wide variety of technical requirements which must be met before benefits are paid. And, because of the very lucrative commission structure attached to these policies, brokers are highly motivated to sell them.

When a person buys such a policy they do so with certain goals in mind, i.e:

* Obtaining replacement income when a disability strikes the family breadwinner.
* Coverage for the length of time the breadwinner can’t work.
* Benefits that come as close as possible to replacing the breadwinner’s usual income.
* Protection against a rising cost of living if the disability is long term.
* In high income situations, protecting the insured’s “own occupation” and securing adequate amounts of coverage in the event of disability.

Most of us who have personal policies purchased them from an agent or broker whom we assumed knew his or her stuff and did his or her homework before trying to sell us a policy. And, “sell” is the operative word. The agent or broker is interested in making a commission on the sale. That’s how they earn money to support their families. And, the commissions on disability insurance can be substantial – up to 50% of the premiums.

Do we know how scrupulous, knowledgeable or smart our particular broker or agent is about disability income insurance? Unless we are certain of the answer to this question, we have to ask a lot of questions and make sure we see the answers in our policy.

The policy is the contract which sets forth the terms of the deal between you and the insurer. If what you think is in there is not, then your coverage is incomplete and you and your family can be badly hurt in the event you become disabled.

If the policy is the contract, you must read it and satisfy yourself that it says what you think it does. The time to do this is obviously before you make a claim. After you claim, you can be certain that the insurance company will fight hammer and tongs against a claim which is not clearly covered in the policy. And, the chances are that under these circumstances the insurer will win, even in court.

When you buy a policy you are not looking to buy the right to sue the broker or agent for a mistake or oversight. You are looking for a contractual right to benefits from a solid financial entity – the insurance company.

To assure yourself, read your policy before it’s too late. If the language is not fully understandable to you, get somebody who knows insurance language to help.

Asking for help is not a sin. Depriving your family of a future because you were too proud to ask, is.

If At First...

Michael Quiat — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:01:56 -0500

Many times the first thing a caller will ask us is, “Do I really need a lawyer to help me with this disability income insurance claim?” One reason it is difficult for us to answer is that we may profit from telling the truth: “Yes, in the vast majority of cases you really do need a lawyer who knows disability income practice inside and out”.

Pursuing disability income claims is the way we make our living. But, there are much more cogent reasons for having a knowledgeable insurance practitioner in your corner. Your attorney works for you and knows all of the tricks and traps of filing and successfully prosecuting a disability income claim.

One of the most damaging things a claimant can do is get off on the wrong foot when filing the original claim. Filing a disability income notice of claim, where one requests the appropriate claim application forms is not the same as filing a notice of claim in an auto accident. Don’t be lulled into a casual notice of claim in disability income insurance.

Your first notice, even though it only requests forms, is most important because whatever you say to or file with the insurer will be retained throughout the life of the claim. Omit an important fact or describe it hazily and it will haunt your claim forever, being cited again and again by the insurance company at every point in the proceedings.

Before you file your claim, two issues must be resolved:

* You must make certain your treating physician agrees that your medical condition supports your claim for disability insurance.
* Your policy must be carefully read and understood to determine if your claim is covered and the required procedure for making a claim. The policy is your contract with the carrier and you can bet your bottom dollar that if your application can be deemed deficient under the policy terms, it will be.

Your claim should contain a clear statement of why you think you are entitled to disability income benefits and supply the evidence to support your claim. Just telling the carrier you are filing a claim is not enough. Details are necessary to move the claim forward. And, those details had better be correct and apropos because any omission or mistake will undermine your claim so long as it shall live.

The claim should include:

* Full details on the policy you are claiming under.
* Full details on the illness or injury which is the basis of your claim.
* Full details on your employer, your occupation and the duties of your occupation which you claim you can no longer perform.
* Copies of all medical reports and hospital records which substantiate your illness or injury.
* All occupational or vocational testing records you intend to use to support your claim that you cannot perform the duties of your occupation.
* All pay and income records to support your claim for benefits.

As you may imagine, all of these documents will be thoroughly examined by the carrier as to their pedigree and accuracy. Misstatements and omissions will be carefully catalogued and be used against you throughout the proceedings, no matter how many times you correct the misstatement or provide the omitted material.

Errors committed in your first submissions create a situation in which you not only have to prove your case, but also have to “unprove” the error or omission you made under oath.

Getting a disability income insurance carrier to pay on a properly submitted claim is tough enough. Getting the company to pay after defective or omitted claim documents is darn near impossible.

Why take the chance?

Practical Way To Cut Medical Costs

Michael Quiat — Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:58:28 -0500

There are a lot of reasons for the high cost of medical care in the U.S., many of them having to do with the cost of evolving cures for formerly incurable illnesses, miraculous drug treatments and the fact that people are living longer these days.

We don’t want to suggest potential cures for these kinds of seemingly insoluble problems, but we do have some basic, common sense thoughts which could still save a lot of money while streamlining the medical system.

The idea came to us while we were reading a study by the Weill Cornell Medical College, the University of Toronto and the Medical Group Management Association, which concluded that U.S. physicians and their staffs spend almost four times more time dealing with health insurers and health payers, than do doctors in Canada. This additional administrative time is figured in the fees charged to patients and their insurers.

The study calculated that if U.S. doctors had administrative costs similar to their brethren in Canada, the savings in health dollars to the U.S. would about $27 billion. This might seem like a pittance when compared to the overall health costs in the U.S., but we have to start somewhere and this is an area which does not touch on the quality of treatment. It just makes sense.

Canada has a single payer health system. If we don’t want to have such a system in the U.S., there certainly should be no objection to uniform forms which document services and medical necessity and provide treatment summaries to minimize the administrative burden on the doctor’s office staff. Rather than having to “recreate the wheel” every time an insurer asks for information, the use of standardized formats by all carriers will make it easier for the doctor’s office to comply with the request and to comply in a timely, cost effective manner. Like anything else, when you repeat the same procedures over and over again, you become familiar with them and it becomes easier for you to fill in the information on a familiar form.

Insurance companies should be expected to jointly design a series of reporting forms for U.S. doctors which sets forth the information the insurers need while providing doctors and their staffs with a user-friendly, standard record to complete.

Such standardized forms, devised by the insurance companies themselves, should be used by every health insurer so that once doctors and their staffs become familiar with them, it will take less time and effort to complete them, and to do so correctly the first time.

Why is this important? Because the study found that doctor’s nurses and medical assistants spent more than 20 hours a week per doctor on tasks related to health insurance plans, more than 10 times that spent by the same staff in Canada.

Evaluation of the time spent by senior office administrators and clerical staff told the same story – substantially more time spent in U.S. offices than in Canada. If time is money, and it is, then it is easy to see that administrative waste is eating up a much larger chunk of the medical pie here than it is in Canada.

If health insurers, whose profits are soaring these days, would cooperate and spend the time and effort required to devise standardized reports, it would cut down on the heavy administrative costs doctors pay their staffs (and charge patients for), while streamlining the medical reimbursement system.

Such a move should save appreciable money and maybe a few bucks would fall off the table for patients. What a concept!

Do It While You Think Of It

Michael Quiat — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:39:21 -0500

Whenevcr we think about writing a blog on life, health or long term care insurance, we think about how many policies may be lapsing at that very moment because the policyholder has the beginnings of some cognitive disorder which affects the ability to remember to pay premiums.

One would think that an insurance company which deals with older persons would be aware of the fact that advancing age sometimes brings on Alzheimers or some other functional disorder that affects a person’s ability to take care of their business. If the insurer were a friend, or even neutral, one would expect that the insurer would make inquiry about the failure to pay premiums before canceling a long term care or life policy.

However, the insurer is anything but a neutral, vis-à-vis the policyholder, and is plainly and simply, an adversary. So, when it comes time to pay premiums on the policy, the insurance company gains nothing by spending a lot of time and money trying to ascertain why the insured has stopped paying the premium after many years of payment. After all, if the company cancels the policy for nonpayment of premium it has the best of both worlds – it keeps the premiums it has and sheds the obligation of ever paying money out. What could be better?

That’s why every state should have a law requiring the insurance company to follow a specified procedure to try to make certain that the policyholder hasn’t defaulted because of cognitive failure. This procedure might involve absolutely requiring a check of Social Security’s
Master List of Deaths to see if the person has died. If the person has not, further inquiry requirements should be set forth before the policy could be legally canceled.
As an example of making a start on the problem, New Jersey has a statute, N.J.S.A. 17:29C-1-2, requiring that every senior citizen (a person over 62) be permitted to designate a third party who shall receive notices of cancellation, nonrenewal or conditional renewal before those policy changes can be effective. Although this statute doesn’t shut the door on cognitive policy loss, it should help to cut these losses.

But, let’s be real. No matter what the requirements of the law, insurance companies will do the minimum required to meet the law and that may not be enough. There will be nobody at the company working on the insured’s behalf when it decides to cancel the policy.

Every policyholder should protect against losing his or her insurance coverage because of a lapse caused by cognitive dysfunction, by making certain immediately that their policy requires at least a 30-day notice, not only to the owner, but to a close relative or friend, of the insurer’s right to cancel or substantially alter the terms of the policy.

In this way, a policyholder will have someone in his or her corner when the company decides to cancel because of nonpayment of premium or some other reason related to a cognitive failure.

If you are such a policyholder, and while you are thinking of it, just notify the company of the names and addresses of those besides yourself to whom you want notice of cancellation sent, so you will know you are protected if things start to go downhill mentally for you.

After all, when things start to go downhill for you after years of paying premiums, that’s the worst time for you to lose your coverage.

From the insurance company’s point of view, it’s the very best time.

Impartial Medicine?

Michael Quiat — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:00:00 -0500

Just when you thought insurance companies had reached the ultimate in stacking the deck against insureds, they come up with a new ace in the hole. Now they are buying up groups of treating doctors, which they will own, lock stock and barrel

In other words, a doctor who is treating you for an illness or injury which may be the basis of a disability insurance claim and who has to file medical reports on your behalf, may be filing the reports with his or her boss – the insurance company.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

The reasoning put forth by the companies is that they will be able to control costs better if they control how the medical practice is managed. Sounds good, but if experience is any indication as to how it will actually work, hold onto your wallet.

Those who represent disability insurance claimants know that insurance companies usually have a contested claimant’s medical evidence “fine-tooth combed” by a doctor who is employed by a medical services company, retained by the insurance company. In most cases, the medical services company has few sources of income other than the insurer. Likewise, many doctors employed by the medical service company have few, if any, sources of income, other than their work for the medical services company.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if the services company and its doctor employees know what’s good for them, they will tailor their medical findings to favor the medical service company’s customer, the insurance company. If they don’t, a substantial source of their income is likely to dry up and blow away.

Lawyers fighting for claimants in the disability income field learn that IMEs (so-called Independent Medical Exams) performed by a doctor employed by such a medical expert vendor, almost invariably result in a claim denial by an insurance company.

If this is the rule when the doctor’s agency employer is hired by the insurer, what is it going to be like when the insurer is actually the doctor’s “boss”? Is such a tighter relationship likely to make a doctor less favorably inclined toward the insurer?

Going a step further, the treating doctor recommends treatments and medication for the patient. If the doctor knows the insurer-employer pays for this wouldn’t there be an incentive to hold back, so as to make the treatment protocol less expensive? Isn’t that a clear conflict between the interests of the treating doctor, the insurance company for whom the treating doctor works, and the interests of the patient?

It seems clear that despite the growing trend of insurance companies buying medical groups, it should not be happening. Doctors are the people who actually define health claims, which in turn define the extent of financial liability of the insurance companies. The conflict of interest is too great if the insurer is actually the employer of a doctor defining the value of the claim against it

It’s bad enough that a whole medical service industry has grown up on the false premise that doctors who earn a large part of their living examining claimants for insurance companies can be neutral in their findings.

As a practitioner on behalf of claimants in the disability income insurance field for 30 years, we can attest that medical service IME doctors are anything but “independent”. If the doctors were direct employees of the insurance company, the odds of fair medical judgment would be laughable.

It is obvious that a patient wants a doctor to have only the patient’s interests in mind. A potential conflict of interest would have a devastating effect on the relationship. An actual conflict is terrifying.

On the basis of past insurance industry history, would anyone take bets that the insurance companies will not take the advantage that employing treating doctors affords?

The Client-Patient Comes First!

Michael Quiat — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:19:12 -0500

Although doctors and lawyers handling an injury claim for a client-patient should always cooperate, disability income insurance claimants have a most pressing need for ongoing and speedy communication among their medical experts and attorneys. Disability income claims require medical reports that meet special standards and must be filed within strict time limits.

In view of these constraints, it is amazing how many doctors and lawyers can’t seem to get along.

It’s common knowledge that lawyers and doctors, as a class, generally don’t like each other. Each profession has had some bad experiences in dealing with the other, particularly in the area of medical malpractice lawsuits, but that’s no reason to shortchange a claimant-patient, locked in battle with an insurance company. By not helping each other to understand the important parts of a claimant’s case, shortchanging is exactly what the professionals may be doing to their client-patient’s disability income case

Does anyone doubt that the lawyers and doctors, working on the defense for the insurance company, coordinate their efforts to try to put their best foot forward for their client? Why shouldn’t a claimant’s doctors and lawyers be able to work together to present the best case for their client?

The basic problem seems to be that the claimant’s doctor and lawyer are not employed and paid by a single entity, as are the professionals hired by the insurer to defend against the claim. Without this unitary control exercised by the insurer, who is paying them, professionals are subject to their past experiences and prejudices and, sometimes, one profession finds it difficult to cooperate with the other.

It can reasonably argued that an attorney who has spent the best part of his or her professional life reading and interpreting insurance policy language and dealing with insurance companies, is best qualified to know what is important and necessary to include in a disability income claim submission to the insurer.

On the other hand, doctors are clearly best qualified to make medical and psychiatric findings and to produce the necessary medical reports required by insurance companies.

With the expertise of each profession clearly established, and both having the same client-patient, why shouldn’t they be able to work together to present their client-patient’s claim in the best light?

Both professionals should want to do the best for their client-patients. In actuality, they don’t many times, because they view the needs of the case from their own medical or legal standpoint only and do not understand the other profession’s view.

Doctors and lawyers seem to have no patience or inclination to take the time to understand or to trust the judgment of the other profession. Because of this, client-patients do not, in some cases, get the full benefit of the professional knowledge and experience they need

Both professions should understand that the other is busy and overwhelmed with paperwork. Extra time is not usually available to either. Any unnecessary request, one to the other, should be avoided.

But, in the interests of the client-patient, they must communicate. Mistakes or ambiguities in a medical record or report can be fatal to a disability income claim and leave a patient to face a handicapped future without income for the patient or the family.

The attorney must take the time to explain clearly to the doctor what questions the medical or psychiatric reports must answer to meet the requirements of the patient’s insurance policy.

If the lawyer and the doctor retained by the claimant to press his case before the insurer don’t do their jobs properly, who will do it?

If the doctor and the lawyer approach each other in a considerate, respectful manner, there should be no problem in doing their jobs for the client-patient in a professional way. If the doctor and lawyer approach each other with a chip on their shoulder, there is a big problem.

The disability insurance client-patient has enough problems dealing with the insurance company. That’s why the professionals were retained. It is incumbent upon them to drop the “attitude”, if any, and get on with the work they were hired for.