Disability Insurance Lawyer Blog

Frankel & Newfield Achieve A Significant Victory in Long Term Disability Insurance Case Against Met Life in Federal Court

The Court ruled that Met Life was arbitrary and capricious in its consideration of Plaintiff's claim, based upon a number of factors seen regularly in these cases. Plaintiff suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, an illness marked by a lack of true objective evidence.

The Court was troubled by Met Life's insistence upon objective evidence to support a disability from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which the Court noted was a condition that is marked by the absence of any such objective evidence, as well as Met Life's failure to provide Plaintiff with appropriate notice of what evidence it was seeking in order to approve the claim. The Court was also troubled by Met Life's reliance upon Dr. Maslow's "shoddy and incomplete" report and Dr. Payne's "flawed" report, and its failure to consider the findings from Plaintiff's Social Security disability claim, which had found Plaintiff to be credible and his complaints supported by objective evidence.

Many of these factors parallel the issues which appeared in Met Life v. Glenn, and thus, it appears that the Court's are becoming more sensitive to the claim handling bias and the resulted oriented processes of insurers.

Met Life Found to Have Abused Its Discretion

Another judge has found that Met Life abused its discretion in its consideration of a long term disability insurance claim. By relying upon physicians who derive substantial income from providing medical reports to insurance companies, Met Life failed to support its claim determination with "substantial evidence", and its determination was reversed.

Met Life utilized a cadre of paper reviewing doctors, eschewing its right to actually examine the claimant, and relied upon stale surveillance video obtained of the claimant. The Court also found that Met Life failed to provide the claimant with a full and fair review as it is obligated under ERISA. The Court noted that Met Life's financial conflict of interest was a significant factor in its determination. Solomon v. Met Life, (SDNY 2009).

Long Term Disability Insurance Company Claims Adjusters A Little Cranky?

If the next time you call to speak with a Long Term Disability Insurance Claims adjuster or a clerk and they sound cranky or on edge, don't be surprised. According to statistics from the U.S. Department of Labor reported in the June issue of Best's Review, an insurance industry trade publication, April marked the six consecutive month that the insurance industry's payrolls dropped. In April, no less than 4,000 jobs hit the chopping block. February saw 2,200 jobs cut, and 2,000 were let go in March. These numbers reflect the entire insurance industry, not just long term disability insurance companies. But the overall trend is not a good one.

So, if claim adjusters are on the chopping block, how do they best maintain their place within the company? By saving the company money - lots of money. Policy holders who have filed a claim or are thinking of filing a claim for disability insurance benefits need to keep this in mind. The person on the other end of the phone has two objectives in mind - to prevent their employer from having to pay out benefits on a claim, and two - to save their jobs. A difficult situation for them - and even worse for the policyholder.

Do not let your claim become a casualty of this difficult business environment. Stay vigilant and consider getting counsel involved. If you have questions, call us at 877-LTD-CLAIM (877-583-2524).

Jason Newfield Invited to Present at Prominent National Disability Insurance Conference

Jason Newfield returned to American Conference Institute, to speak before a national conference on the impact of the United States Supreme Court decision MetLife v. Glenn on disability insurance litigation in Federal courts. The American Conference Institute's 12th National Advanced Forum on Litigating Disability and ERISA Claims speakers are leaders in the field of disability litigation, and Mr. Newfield was honored to have been selected again to speak before the conference. His program, "A Circuit-by-Circuit Analysis of MetLife v. Glenn Interpretations and how to Adapt Your Litigation Strategies in Response," took place in Boston on June 15, 2009. It was an engaging round table discussion with counsel for insurance companies debating the impact of Met Life v. Glenn with Jason.

Hartford Policyowners - Take Note

If your Long Term Disability insurance policy is with Hartford, you need to know that the atmosphere in the home office is not good.

CEO Ramani Ayer has announced he is leaving by the end of December, and the man once most likely to succeed him, Thomas Marra, resigned earlier this year. Last year both the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Investment Officer both left the company. With a large exposure in financial firms, including Lehman Brothers and AIG, the company has been struggling, and is taking as much as $3.4 billion in TARP funds. Compare that news with MetLife and Prudential, who are raising capital with stock sales and bond offerings, and Travelers Cos., which has been added to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.

Given these difficult financial times, it is likely that disability insurance claimants should expect renewed challenges to the status of their claims. if you have a long term disability insurance policy with Hartford and are concerned about what this news means to you, call our office at 877-LTD-CLAIM (877-538-2524) or click here to send an email.

The Next Supreme Court Justice? How will claimants fare?

As Judge Sotomayor's prior legal decisions, speeches and viewpoints are analyzed by the media and politicians, it is important for lawyers to appreciate her views and perspectives on issues that may impact our respective practices. So, what is Judge Sotomayor's perspective on disability insurance issues?

She has been involved in a number of decisions regarding disability insurance law, both when on the District Court bench, and on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She has been involved in decisions providing considerations of equitable principles to assist claimants, but she has also found in favor of insurance companies on several matters before her on the Court of Appeals. It appears that she will follow the law largely, and despite many protestations from the politicians, she is likely to refrain from too much judicial activism, at least as it pertains to the area of disability insurance law.

The attached article offers the opinion that Judge Sotomayor may in fact be pro-insurer.