Reliance Standard

Annette McEachin, a human resources manager, was covered under a long-term disability policy issued by Reliance Standard Life Insurance. After a car accident in February 2017, McEachin stopped working and was approved for disability benefits due to “head, neck, back pain, and headaches due to whiplash/post-concussion syndrome.” A second car …

In Lisa Breen v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania upheld the termination of Breen's long-term disability benefits. Breen, a registered nurse, was initially approved for benefits but later denied based on insufficient medical evidence. The court ruled that the insurance …

I am pleased to share another recent success story where we helped a deserving client recover her long-term disability benefits after an unjust denial in her long term disability insurance claim. As the owner and founder of the Ortiz Law Firm, I find it immensely rewarding to see justice served and to assist individuals in …

I recently had the privilege of representing a client whose long-term disability (LTD) benefits were wrongfully terminated after ten years of receiving monthly benefits. Our client, a 62-year-old from Rhode Island, had previously thrived in a highly demanding cybersecurity role as a data security specialist. However, because of severe and …

In this case, Tommy W. Senegal (“Senegal”) had a long-term disability policy that was administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”) as a benefit of his employment by Cequel III, LLC (“Cequel”). Senegal worked for Cequel as a field service engineer; his duties were specifically related to supervising cable …

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 Standard”). Two of these polices included a long-term disability benefits plan and a life insurance policy. If an …

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was “totally disabled” under the “any occupation” standard.

Okuno has not established that she satisfied the requisite conditions to obtain disability benefits beyond what Reliance has already paid. Reliance's denial of continued long-term disability benefits appears to have been the result of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. Accordingly, Reliance is entitled to judgment on the …

Melissa McIntyre (“McIntyre”) worked as a Mayo Clinic Health System nurse. She was covered under a long-term disability plan which was administered by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”). Around 2011, McIntyre’s health caused her to cease working. McIntyre suffered from Charcot-Marie-Tooth Syndrome, a neurological issue …

The Complaint alleged that Reliance made the final decision to deny Lash’s claim. The claimant failed to state a claim against Matrix is granted.

Jennifer Coats (“Coats”) was employed by Cottage Health Care as a staff nurse. Through her employment, she was able to participate in an employee welfare benefit plan which included coverage for long-term disability benefits. These benefits were funded by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”). More specifically, Reliance …

The Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Reliance Standard on the ground that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the claimant’s long-term disability benefits. In other words, the Court ruled in favor of the insurance company.

In the instant case, Julissa Bradshaw (“Bradshaw”) was a medical biller for Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (“Pyramid”). She held a policy through Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”) for both short-term and long-term disability coverage. Her coverage under this policy began on May 1, 2013. When Bradshaw was hired by …

The Court found that ERISA preempts Ms. Bey’s state law claims and that Reliance is entitled to summary judgment in its favor in all respects. Given the thorough review by an independent physician, the Court did not conclude that Reliance acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

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 …