Disability Benefits Lawyer & Attorney : Dell & Schaefer : Disability Insurance Claims Law Blog

Kelly Iley, a pharmacist for Kroger Co, was insured under the company’s group long-term disability policy with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). In June 2001, Ms. Iley was diagnosed with lumbar disc disease.

Ms. Iley stopped working in May 2001 and had a discetomy in July 2001 and a fusion surgery in May 2002. She continued to suffer from back pain and filed a total disability benefits claim in November 2001. MetLife initially approved Ms. Iley’s claim but terminated benefits in July 2004, noting the plan’s 24 month limitation period for neuromusculoskeletal and soft-tissue disorders. On appeal, Ms. Iley’s treating physicians submitted statements that she was totally disabled due to radiculopathies. MetLife upheld its denial of benefits and Ms. Iley filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking reinstatement of benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Upon reviewing the case, Judge Sean F. Cox found that MetLife ignored Ms. Iley’s treating doctor’s diagnosis of radiculopathy and wrongly denied long-term disability benefits under ERISA. Judge Cox found that the plan’s 24 month limitation period did not apply to Ms. Iley and ordered reinstatement of her benefits. The court also awarded Ms. Iley over $20,000 in attorney fees.

Kelly Iley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 2:05-cv-71237, E.D. Mich.; 2007 U.S. Dist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Robin Plummer, a pharmacist for Kmart Corporation, was insured under the company’s group disability plan administered by Continental Insurance Company. In 2003, Hartford Life Insurance Company took over administration of the plan.

Ms. Plummer’s back problems began in 1998 and resulted in anterior and posterior fusion surgery. In 1999, Ms. Plummer began receiving long –term disability benefits. In 2004, Hartford had Dr. Klein examine Ms. Plummer who concluded that she could perform a sedentary job. Shortly after the evaluation, Hartford sent Dr. Klein video surveillance of Ms. Plummer which showed her driving for 30 minutes, shopping in a department store, and carrying her grandchild. After viewing the surveillance tapes, Dr. Klein issued an addendum to his report stating that Ms. Plummer could perform light-duty work and lift up to 25 pounds. Based on Dr. Klein’s report, Hartford terminated Ms. Plummer’s benefits. Ms. Plummer filed suit seeking benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

U.S. Judge Thomas M. Rose of the Southern District of Ohio found that Hartford’s termination of benefits to a claimant with chronic back pain was unreasonable. Judge Rose held that the record supports that Ms. Plummer was unable to return to her job as a pharmacist. The judge said that Dr. Klein’s independent medical exam was flawed since he “initially examined Plummer and determined that she was in the sedentary job classification and then changed his opinion based totally upon videos which included observance of Plummer for a total of approximately 13 minutes.” Furthermore, Judge Rose noted that despite the activities in the video surveillance, Hartford’s doctor could not determine if Ms. Plummer “was experiencing pain”. Summary judgment was granted to Ms. Plummer finding that she was entitled to disability benefits under her plan.

Robin Plummer v. The Hartford Life Insurance Co., No. 3:06cv00094, S.D. Ohio; 2007 U.S. Dist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nancy Mikrut, a pediatric nurse practitioner for Danbury Health Systems, was insured under the company’s group disability plan administered by Unum Life Insurance Company of America. In 1999, Ms. Mikrut was injured in an automobile accident and was unable to return to work due to severe back pain. In January 2000, Ms. Mikrut was diagnosed with spinal stenosis and filed for long-term disability benefits. After an intradiscal electrothermal therapy, Ms. Mikrut has a second surgery in March 2001.

After 24 months of benefits, Unum re-evaluated Ms. Mikrut’s claim. Without meeting her, a Unum medical consultant found Ms. Mikrut capable of full-time sedentary work. In August 2002, Ms. Mikrut’s treating physician told Unum that she was disabled from any occupation in which she had to bend, lift, pull, sit, or stand for periods of time. Unum terminated Ms. Mikrut’s benefits and she filed suit, seeking benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

U.S. Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the District of Connecticut found that Unum failed to account for subjective complaints of pain and the treating physician’s opinions before terminating Ms. Mikrut’s benefits. The judge ruled that Unum did not adequately consider an award of benefits by the Social Security Administration. Judge Underhill held that Ms. Mikrut is eligible for continued long-term disability benefits under the plan since she is unable to perform the duties of any gainful occupation. While Unum is not required to credit treating physician’s opinion over other evidence, Judge Underhill stated that Unum cannot “arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant’s reliable evidence, including the opinions of treating physicians.”

Nancy P. Mikrut v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 3:03cv1714, D. Conn.; 2006 U.S. Dist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks