Ortiz Law Firm is dedicated to helping people recover the disability benefits they deserve. We handle group Long Term Disability (LTD) claims, individual disability insurance policy claims, ERISA disability claims, and Social Security Disability claims.

You are here: Home / Archives for Nick Ortiz

Nick Ortiz

Zerangue v. Lincoln – Case Dismissed Because Claimant Did Not Apply For Benefits

In Zerangue v. Lincoln National, Lena Zerangue (“Zerangue”) filed an ERISA suit against The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (“Lincoln”) in an attempt to recover long-term disability benefits that she believed she should receive. Lincoln then filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim because it alleged that Zerangue had not yet exhausted all administrative …

Zerangue v. Lincoln – Case Dismissed Because Claimant Did Not Apply For BenefitsRead More

Draper v. Aetna – Court Rules That MRI Was Not A “Significant Finding”

In this case, Christopher Draper (“Draper”) worked as a truck driver/courier for Federal Express Corporation (“Fed Ex”). His job duties included doing things such as “maneuvering packages of any weight above 75 lbs. with appropriate equipment and/or assistance from another person.” This claim arose from a denial of Draper’s short-term disability (STD) benefits which originated …

Draper v. Aetna – Court Rules That MRI Was Not A “Significant Finding”Read More

Burkhead v. LINA – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Arbitrary And Capricious

In Burkhead v. Life Insurance Company of North America, the plaintiff filed for short and long-term disability benefits from Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), the insurer of her ERISA governed plan. In the District Court’s Opinion, the court held that LINA abused its discretion in denying plaintiff benefits under the “own occupation” standard …

Burkhead v. LINA – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Arbitrary And CapriciousRead More

Bowman v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Not Arbitrary And Capricious

Anthony Bowman (“Bowman”) was employed as a Maintenance Mechanic which required the ability to do heavy lifting between fifty and sixty pounds. Injuries throughout his life caused him to have a number of surgeries and resulted in chronic neck and back pain. Bowman also had issues with a sleep disorder and pain medication, which led …

Bowman v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Not Arbitrary And CapriciousRead More

Ampe v. Prudential – Engineer’s Case Remanded For Further Review

This case involves James Ampe (“Ampe”), a Senior Development and Test Engineer employed by MIT Lincoln Laboratories (“MIT”). Ampe’s job duties included not only traditional electrical engineer work, but also regular client interactions. He was employed by the company from 2008 to January 26, 2015. Around August 2011, Ampe injured himself when he fell and …

Ampe v. Prudential – Engineer’s Case Remanded For Further ReviewRead More

Foster v. Principal – Court Finds Principal Didn’t Commit Abuse Of Discretion

In this case, Amanda Foster (“Foster”) worked as an attorney for Sullivan, Stolier & Knight (“Sullivan”) in New Orleans. Her duties involved being able to “review and draft leases and agreements; research and advise clients regarding government laws and regulations; represent clients in administrative appeals; [and] draft compliance plans.” When Foster had been working for …

Foster v. Principal – Court Finds Principal Didn’t Commit Abuse Of DiscretionRead More

Charles v. UPS and Aetna – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Abuse Of Discretion

Aetna’s decision to deny the plaintiff benefits was unsupported by substantial evidence and was, thereby arbitrary and capricious. Aetna gave great weight to the opinions of its own experts and afforded little, to no, weight to the plaintiff’s own physicians. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff’s physicians—who had been treating him for several years—would be better able to recommend health and safety conditions than doctors who simply reviewed his medical files.

Charles v. UPS and Aetna – Court Rules LTD Denial Was Abuse Of DiscretionRead More

Allen v. Unum – Court Rules Unum Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Claim

The Court determined that Unum came to a reasonable decision after a principled decision-making process. Although the Court may have reached a different conclusion independently, Unum did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s claim for long-term disability benefits.

Allen v. Unum – Court Rules Unum Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying ClaimRead More

The Hartford Now Owns Aetna’s Long-Term Disability Group Insurance Division

If you have a long-term disability insurance claim that has been managed by Aetna, and now letters are coming to you on letterhead from The Hartford, do not be alarmed. That’s because Hartford entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Aetna’s U.S. group life and disability business in October 2017. This means that Hartford has …

The Hartford Now Owns Aetna’s Long-Term Disability Group Insurance DivisionRead More