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.
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
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 …
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
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
// by Nick Ortiz
Lincoln denied the Plaintiff’s LTD claim. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Federal Court. Lincoln filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, to which Till responded with a motion for summary judgment. After a full briefing, the district court entered an order granting Lincoln’s motion and denying Till’s. The district court also subsequently denied Till’s motion to reconsider. After carefully considering the record on appeal, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the district court decision is due to be affirmed.
Till v. Lincoln – Claimant Failed To Provide Adequate Documentation To Support ClaimRead More
// by Nick Ortiz
In this case, Fredrick Smith (“Smith”) was employed as a plant manager for Charles Craft, Inc. (“Craft”) reaching back to the 1970’s. Through his job, he held group policies with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance”). Two of these polices included a long term disability benefits plan and a life insurance policy. If an employee is considered …
Smith v. Reliance – Reliance Committed An Abuse Of DiscretionRead More
// by Nick Ortiz
Ursula Mayer (“Mayer”) was an employee of Mercy Health Services, LLC (“Mercy”) and was covered under a long-term disability insurance policy that was issued by Cigna Group Insurance (“Cigna”). She claimed that she was totally disabled according to the definition within the policy, that she applied for benefits with Cigna, and that her claim was denied. …
Mayer v. Mercy And LINA – Court Unable To Determine Whether Plan Is Church Plan Or NotRead More
Ortiz Law Firm is a national disability law firm specializing in long-term disability appeals, disability insurance lawsuits, and Social Security Disability claims. Contact us for a free case review.
(888) 321-8131
316 S Baylen St., Ste 590,
Pensacola, FL 32502