In Mozdzierz v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, the plaintiff (claimant) seeks long term disability benefits from Aetna, the insurer of his ERISA-governed long term disability plan. The Federal District Court (for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania) found that Aetna did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s claim based upon the record. In other words, Aetna’s denial of benefits was upheld. …
Case Summary Blog
Young v. Aetna – Aetna Commits Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Plaintiff’s LTD Claim
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: “As explained above, I have identified three primary reasons for determining that Aetna abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s benefits: Inappropriate reliance on unreliable findings by Drs. Topper, McPhee, and Polanco; failure to address Plaintiff’s qualifications and ability to engage in sedentary occupations in light of her medication requirements; and failure to address the findings in the APS and Capabilities and Limitations Worksheets showing that Plaintiff could not perform full-time sedentary work.
Young v. Aetna – Aetna Commits Abuse Of Discretion In Denying Plaintiff’s LTD ClaimRead More
Sumpter v. MetLife – Court Rules Lawsuit Against MetLife Is Frivolous
In granting summary judgment for MetLife, the district court reasoned that when Sumpter became disabled, Delphi’s plan did not provide the benefit he sought and that he was not entitled to equitable relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld this decision.
Sumpter v. MetLife – Court Rules Lawsuit Against MetLife Is FrivolousRead More
Gilmore v. Liberty Life – Court Finds No Reason To Doubt Claimant’s Credibility
In this case, the plaintiff noted that the Policy’s states that “‘Proof’ means the evidence in support of a claim for benefits and includes, but is not limited to, the following.” Plaintiff thus argued that, while objective medical evidence may be sufficient to support a disability claim, it was not necessary to do so.
Gilmore v. Liberty Life – Court Finds No Reason To Doubt Claimant’s CredibilityRead More
Glenn v. MetLife – Understanding How Courts Evaluate Long-Term Disability Lawsuits
A Court must take into consideration the conflict of interest inherent in a benefits system in which the entity that pays the long-term disability benefits maintains discretionary control over the ultimate benefits decision. This is done by weighing the structural conflict as one of the many factors relevant to the benefits determination decision. However, this conflict of interest …
Glenn v. MetLife – Understanding How Courts Evaluate Long-Term Disability LawsuitsRead More
Potter v. Unum – Insurance Saleswoman Denied Disability After Selling Millions In Disability Insurance Policies
One of the hardest things I must explain to clients is how the insurance company does not care about the client’s disabling condition. Disability insurance companies are for-profit corporations constantly seeking ways to increase their bottom lines. More often than not, they accomplish this by denying long-term disability claims. In this article, we discuss an insurance …
Wittman v. Unum – LTD Denial Was Not Arbitrary And Capricious
Anne Wittmann (“Wittmann”) was an attorney at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell, Berkowitz PC (“Baker Donelson”). Unum Life Insurance Company of America (“Unum”) administered and underwrote the long term disability (LTD) plan that covered Wittmann. Wittmann filed a claim for disability benefits on April 7, 2014, since she had not worked from December 31, 2013. Under the …
Wittman v. Unum – LTD Denial Was Not Arbitrary And CapriciousRead More
Bigham v. Liberty Life – In De Novo Review Court Should Conduct Bench Trial On The Record
Case Name: Rose Bigham v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle Type of Claim: Long-Term Disability Insurance Company: Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston a/k/a Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (hereinafter “Liberty Life”) Claimant’s Employer: Amazon, LLC Claimant’s Occupation / Job Position: Security Technical Program Manager Disabilities: chronic intractable pain, fibromyalgia, …
Bigham v. Liberty Life – In De Novo Review Court Should Conduct Bench Trial On The RecordRead More
Williams v. Standard – Court Upholds Plan Administrator’s Decision
Defendant advances two grounds for terminating the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits. First, the defendant contends the plaintiff does not qualify for an exception to the “Other Limited Conditions” provision under the Plan because he does not have a herniated disc with documented neurological abnormalities. Second, the defendant claims the plaintiff is not disabled from all occupations and thus does not qualify for benefits during his policy’s “Any Occupation” period. If established, either of these grounds would provide a recognized justification for the termination of the plaintiff’s benefits under the terms of the Plan.
Williams v. Standard – Court Upholds Plan Administrator’s DecisionRead More
Wilkinson v. Sun Life – Sun Life Abused Its Discretion By Denying Benefits
The Fourth Circuit held that Sun Life abused its discretion when it terminated Wilkinson’s benefits because he provided sufficient evidence to support his eligibility for coverage and because Sun Life’s decision to terminate benefits was not the result of a principled reasoning process and not supported by substantial evidence. The Fourth Circuit, therefore, affirmed the district court’s decision.
Wilkinson v. Sun Life – Sun Life Abused Its Discretion By Denying BenefitsRead More