Posts

For those who have successfully fought to have a disability claim approved, they want it to stay that way. When the letter arrives from an insurance company seeking an update in status, most claimants begin to worry – and rightly so. As the Western District of Michigan federal court wisely observed fifteen years ago:

The plan and insurance language did not say, but the world should take notice, that when you buy insurance like this you are purchasing an invitation to a legal ritual in which you will be perfunctorily examined by expert physicians whose objective it is to find you not disabled, you will be determined not disabled by the insurance company principally because of the opinions of the unfriendly experts, and you will be denied benefits.

Loucks v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, 337 F. Supp. 2d 990, 991 (W.D. Mich. 2004) (vacated following settlement).

Under the terms of their contracts, disability insurers are entitled to request continuing proof of loss.  So, it is also reasonable to expect that that a disability claimant will be called upon to provide updated medical proof of their condition and disability. This does not mean that an insurer may act unreasonably in requesting continuing proof of disability, only that an insurer may reasonably request updates on a claimant’s medical status.  For a disability claimant receiving a monthly payment, it should be acknowledged that once the payments begin the claim is not over.  The only way to effectively deal with this climate is get out in front of it.

Here are our suggestions:

  1. Go to every doctor’s appointment with a list of continuing physical (or if applicable psychological) limitations. Don’t leave a single thing out.
  2. Document and report every single side effect of your treatment or medication.
  3. Document and report every unique episode (a fall, a forgetful spell, or a day spent in bed) and timely make your doctor aware.
  4. Do not miss doctor’s appointments. If you anticipate a problem, reschedule right away. Under no circumstances should it ever be listed that the claimant was a “no show.”
  5. Make sure the doctor has documented everything before you leave.
  6. Routinely request copies of your records and make sure they are complete and correct – before they are requested from an insurance company.  Best practice would be to request a report be sent to you after every visit.

Successfully securing a disability claim approval is a victory to be sure – yet take care to follow the steps set forth above, or it can be short lived.

Stay off social media if you have a long-term disability claim.

We have written about this issue before. See, Long-Term Disability Insurance Update: An Online ‘Friend’ You May Not ‘Like.’

Perhaps one of the most overlooked features about ERISA disability claims is the fact that, since most jurisdictions generally restrict the ability of parties to conduct discovery, the fact gathering process is a little like the Wild West.  Claimants gather their own evidence outside of the formal discovery rules used in federal court.  Disability insurance companies gather their own evidence in this way as well.

Nearly every claim we review for our clients contains the insurer’s detailed social media investigation report – this is part of why disability claimants are being asked for their email addresses on claims forms. Disability insurers like Aetna, Unum, Reliance Standard, CIGNA, and Life Insurance Company of North America, as well as administrators like Sedgwick, are now reviewing social media activity as a part of their investigatory process.

Armed with an email address, the insurance company’s investigators can track Facebook, Twitter, and perhaps even dating sites. Exploiting the failure to activate privacy controls on publicly-viewable pages, these insurance companies can examine your life as told through your family and friend’s posted photographs and videos.   Those images are downloaded or screen-captured and then put into the claims file – sometimes in a totally dishonest or misrepresentative arrangement.

For those accustomed to litigation under the Federal Rules, the fact that much of this stuff has not been authenticated is particularly galling.  Nevertheless, it is usually admitted without so much as an objection when those administrative records are filed with a federal court.

Recently, a Nevada federal court put the brakes on the weight given to such social media posts in terminating a benefit claim.  In Williamson v. Aetna, No. 2:17-cv-02653 (D. Nev. March 31, 2019), the disability insurer terminated a long-term disability claim based, exclusively, on its capture of social media posts (which it failed to independently verify) and an 11-minute surveillance video. The district court found that the insurer’s decision to base its determination on this type of non-medical evidence violated ERISA.  Here the Court opined that it found

that Defendant abused its discretion when it terminated Plaintiff’s disability benefits absent medical evidence that her disabilities had improved. To the extent Defendant relied upon Plaintiff’s Facebook and dating website postings, the Court finds that such evidence is an illogical, implausible, and unreasonable basis for a revocation of disability benefits compared to the use of medical records. First, Defendant was aware of the inherent accuracy issues with such postings. Second, Defendant never sought to independently verify the posted information beyond the limited surveillance.

Notably, the district court zeroed in on the authentication issues without necessarily putting the case through an F.R.E. 901 formal analysis.  The district court found that “Defendant possessed no external evidence of when or where the posted photographs were taken.” The district court continued that “the Defendant did not ask Plaintiff when those pictures were taken or seek additional context” or seek “to actually verify the explanations provided by Plaintiff.”

Critically, however, the district court did find “it was not an abuse of discretion for Defendant to use the information gleaned from Plaintiff’s social media accounts as a trigger to investigate Plaintiff’s ongoing disability status.”  The district court held “that social media postings are minimally informative and inherently inaccurate as to a person’s medical symptoms and capacity for sustained employment. Such postings cannot plausibly constitute a basis for Defendant’s 2016 disability determination.”

Even though the district court narrowed in on the unreliability of social media evidence in disability cases, it still does not alter the bottom line:  Stay off social media during a disability claim.

What is the single greatest mistake long term disability claimants make?

Preparing their own internal disability appeal.

It is that simple.

A case worth hundreds of thousands of dollars can be converted to zero – near instantly – when a disability insurance claimant attempts to prepare his or her own administrative appeal.  There are several reasons for this, as discussed below.

No. 1.    Disability Claimants and Disability Insurers Have Grossly Unequal Resources

There is a complete disparity of resources when disability claimants attempt to take on their disability insurers.  Viewing this from the claimant’s perspective, what resources are typically available to the average insured person?  Presumably, there is a home computer or tablet, a printer, access to an internet fax program, and copies of pertinent medical records.   All these instruments and evidence can be used to assemble a homemade disability appeal.

By contrast, however, a disability insurer is often a multi-billion-dollar company, publicly traded on the stock market, with profit motivations designed to satisfy shareholders, including institutional investors.  It has significant financial resources – all of which are at the ready to be deployed against a disability claimant.  This is just the macro-picture of the disparity.

On the micro-level, disability insurance claims departments are populated by claims adjusters who have been trained to handle and process disability claims, oversee medical exams, and have been taught how to selectively read medical exam records.  Disability insurance companies have in-house physicians, nurses, and large expense accounts to pay unfriendly experts who routinely perform thousands of reviews and exams favorable to the insurers. Finally, the disability claim is one of typically 300 to 400 other claims these claims adjusters oversee simultaneously.  In short, they know how to deny a claim and are not able (or willing) to dedicate a material amount of time to review your medical as a true fiduciary should.

No. 2.    Not Fully Understanding the Reason for the Denial

A disability insurance denial is usually a lengthy letter. These letters contain required notices, citations to insurance contract language, several addresses, claims identifying information, and so on.   Sandwiched in-between all this writing is the rationale for denying the claim.  The rationale is the “why,” or explanation for why, a sought-after disability benefit is not being paid.  This can be confusing, even to the lawyers who work on these claims regularly.

For example, based on the language a disability insurance company uses to deny a claim, a claimant might mistakenly believe that the insurer is claiming they are not actually suffering from an illness when, in fact, the insurer is really disputing whether a person who is ill can still work.  Another often confusing rationale is the challenge to the supportive medical evidence.  By way of further example, is the insurer saying the evidence is non-existent or inadequate or is the insurer seeking another type of evidence altogether?  Furthering the opportunity for confusion, an insurer typically will not explain to a claimant the difference between objective and subjective evidence.  Misunderstanding why a claim is being denied can doom it.

No. 3.    Overlooking Critical Supporting Documentation

Medical records are obviously key evidence in supporting a disability claim.  The trouble is that medical records, alone, are rarely enough to the win a case.  The records require in depth explanation.  The records must be tied to showing a physical or mental limitation.  Often the records, themselves, provide foundation evidence for other documentation – such as a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE) or vocational rehabilitation analysis.  These are areas of expertise to which a claimant may not have ready access to make their case. Leaving out this crucial documentation can also doom a claim during the appeal process and leave a lawyer little to work with if the case eventually goes to court.

No. 4.    “Writing a Letter”

When was the last time you wrote a letter and the reader was so moved to start paying you instantly?  Has that ever occurred?  Has it even occurred to anyone you know personally?  In short, it does not happen.  As fine a person as you may be, no one will ever approve a disability benefit based on a written letter – no matter how beautifully composed or compelling in narration.

Somewhat cynically, disability insurers love receiving ‘a letter’ explaining why a person cannot work.   So long as that letter is not accompanied by medical evidence, the insurer will always be able to deny the claim based on no ‘proof of loss’ or ‘proof of claim.’  A disability claimant will likely never be treated better by an insurance company than in the 30-day period following their ‘writing a letter.’  The case is over, the insurer knows it, but the insurer does not want you to know it – yet.

The Bottom Line

While disability claims are not (lawfully) supposed to be adversarial, they truly are.  It is you against them.  You forget that rule at your peril.  No claims adjuster is there to help – their intention, and job, is to keep costs down by paying on claims as infrequently as possible.  They do their job the way that you did your job – they aim to do it well.  And doing it well means denying your claim.

Recently, we participated in a mediation with a large national insurer who is showing up more and more in our litigation files. Our client is a thirty-year employee who suffered from a terrible spinal condition and failed back surgery. Three medical treating physicians and an independent medical examiner found her totally disabled. One opined she was incapable of ever working again. She drained her 401(k) to pay her living expenses. She has applied for Social Security and is awaiting a decision.

The insurer denied the claim and has paid nothing for two and a half years while this financial wreckage has ensued.

The insurer’s claim denial was based upon a file review performed by a single East Coast doctor who never examined the insured and was contracted through a national vendor. The national vendor has a contractual relationship with the insurer.

The file reviewer’s report lists the medical evidence she claimed to have reviewed which includes MRIs (both actual images and reports). The file reviewer then opines that the restrictions could not be “substantiated” because there were “no MRI reports” in the file. This is not a misprint – the insurance company doctor lists the MRIs in the reviewed materials portion of the report and then somehow writes that those images do not exist.

Obviously, the denial is made in bad faith and is particularly sloppy.

At mediation, the insurer who has paid nothing now argues that the insured should get a mere stipend of because her “estimated” disability income is really the responsibility of the Social Security Administration, and the insurer merely provides a secondary benefit. We told the insurer to take a hike, and we will fight to get the decision and try to set precedent.

Unfortunately, this is the typical scenario in an ERISA group long-term disability case today.

More and more, private disability insurers who collect hundreds of millions in premiums are basically turning over the financial responsibility to the federal government to re-insure these private insurance contracts. Disability insurance companies argue this other income “offsetting” is keeping insurance rates low, but what they omit mention of is that this same “low-rate insurance” is not really insurance at all. All the insured has purchased is the right to apply for Social Security and maybe get a small stipend from the insurer.

The insurers have figured this out. The long-term disability contracts require an application to Social Security to get benefits flowing from the federal government, regardless of whether the insured even qualifies. Long-term disability contracts typically contain a 180-day waiting period (the same as Social Security). These same long-term disability contracts contain a “minimum” benefit usually of $100 per month.

Why do the insurance companies pay a $100 per month? Disability insurers know that an employee earning $40,000.00 a year with one or more dependents is really is never going to collect much private disability insurance, and if they don’t pay just a little something to the insured, the contract will fail for want of consideration. In other words, the contract will fail because the insured is getting nothing in return.

So, you have a long-term disability insurance contract, but do you really have any insurance coverage?

One of the more notable observations of the responsibility of plan administrators to provide full and fair reviews consistent with 29 U.S.C. § 1133 appeared two decades ago in Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland v. Emerson Elec. Co., 202 F.3d 839, 848 n. 7 (6th Cir. 2000).  There, Judge Gerald Rosen, former chief U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation, resolved a provider-plan dispute under ERISA, holding:

[I]t strikes us as problematic to, on one hand, recognize an administrator’s discretion to interpret a plan by applying a deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review, yet, on the other hand, allow the administrator to “shore up” a decision after-the-fact by testifying as to the “true” basis for the decision after the matter is in litigation, possible deficiencies in the decision are identified, and an attorney is consulted to defend the decision by developing creative post hoc arguments that can survive deferential review. The concerns inherent in this scenario are even more pronounced where, as here, the administrator has a financial incentive to deny benefits.  Id.

Seventeen years later, the Sixth Circuit reaffirmed this notion in Corey v. Sedgwick Claims Mgt. Services, Inc., 858 F.3d 1024, 1028 (6th Cir. 2017).  The Court held:

The Administrator’s response leans heavily on the plan’s grant of interpretive discretion. But the record leaves us guessing as to how the Administrator interpreted the plan’s objective-findings definition. The Administrator’s denial letters simply quote the plan language and then conclude Corey’s evidence fails to suffice. Although the Administrator enjoys interpretive latitude, we defer only to its actual interpretations—it can’t issue a conclusory denial and then rely on an attorney to craft a post-hoc explanation. Id. (citing Univ. Hosps. of Cleveland v. Emerson Elec. Co., 202 F.3d 839, 848 n.7 (6th Cir. 2000)).

These cases advance the notion that although ERISA cases still function as adversarial proceedings, claims under the statute are required to be evaluated differently than most other disputes.  The plan’s administrators are fiduciaries, tasked with fiduciary standards of conduct, not partisan advocates.  These rulings do not mean that a claimant seeking benefits must win, far from it.  They do require, however, that ERISA participants must, by law, be given a fair shot at presenting their claims.  Evaluation of their claims must not be outcome-determinative or results-oriented. Courts continue to frown upon denials which are the product of lawyerly arguments rather than the type of independent decision-making ERISA requires.

Insurance companies administering ERISA long-term disability claims may be facing new rules.  In 2012 the U.S. Department of Labor’s ERISA Advisory Council undertook a study on issues relating to managing disability claims in the ERISA administrative review context. The Advisory Council recommended that the USDOL review the current claims regulation and recommend specific updates and modifications.

After taking comments, the final rule was published on December 19, 2016, and is set to take effect January 1, 2018.[1]  One of the main aims of the final rule is to “alleviate the financial and emotional hardship suffered by many individuals when they are unable to work after becoming disabled and their claims are denied.”[2]

The main “Claims Regulation” under which ERISA disability claims have been administered and adjudicated since 2002 – 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 – will be revised and updated to include the following:

1. Conflicts of Interest are to be Avoided.

Claims and appeals are to be adjudicated in a manner designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the benefit determination. Decisions regarding hiring, compensation, termination, promotion, or other similar matters are not be based upon the likelihood that the individual will support the denial of benefits.

2. The Disclosure Requirements are Expanded.

Under the final rule, benefit denial notices must contain a complete discussion of why the plan denied the claim and the standards applied in reaching the decision.  This includes the basis for disagreeing with the views of the claimant’s health care professionals, vocational professionals or with disability determinations made by the Social Security Administration.

Plans can no longer disagree with a treating health care professional “merely by stating that the plan or a reviewing physician disagrees with the treating physician….”[3]  The final rule requires that the adverse benefit determination include a discussion of the basis for disagreeing with the health care professional’s views.

The same standard also applies to a denial which disagrees with a Social Security Administration finding of disability. Disagreement with the determination must be accompanied by “more detailed justification….”[4]  The final rule also requires an administrator to notify a claimant of an alleged deficiency in the record and provide an opportunity to supplement the record, particularly if the administrator is not in possession of an applicable Social Security Administration ruling.

3. Timely Disclosure of New Evidence and Rationale Supporting a Denial Must Be Produced

Under the final rule, claimants must be given timely notice of their right to access their entire claim file, as well as other relevant documents, and be guaranteed the right to present evidence and testimony in support of their claim during the review process.  The Department took the position that claimants

have a right to review and respond to new evidence or rationales developed by the plan during the pendency of the appeal and to fully and fairly present their case at the administrative appeal level, as opposed to merely having a right to review such information on request only after the claim has already been denied on appeal.[5]

Any evidence or rationale provided must be turned over as soon as possible, and sufficiently in advance of the date on which the notice of adverse benefit determination on review is required to be provided, to allow the claimant a reasonable opportunity to respond to the new evidence.  Rather than viewing this as a ‘new’ requirement, the DOL took the position that it simply hones the prior requirements under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1 to clarify exactly what, and when, information should be provided to claimants.

4. Deemed Exhaustion of Claims and Appeals Processes

Under the final rule, plans cannot prohibit a claimant from seeking judicial review of a claim denial based on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the plan if the plan failed to comply with the claims procedure requirements.  A “minor error” is the only exception to this new provision, although the DOL noted that this standard is “stricter than a mere ‘substantial compliance’ requirement.”[6]

5. Amending the Definition of “Adverse Benefit Determination”

Under the final rule, certain rescissions of coverage are to be treated as “adverse benefit determinations” triggering the plan’s appeals procedures. For plans providing disability benefits, a rescission of coverage that has a retroactive effect now constitutes an adverse benefit determination.  Under the USDOL’s analysis, if a plan provides for the payment of disability benefits for a pre-determined, fixed period, the termination of benefits at the end of the specified period would not constitute an adverse benefit determination under the regulation, but rather a new claim.

6. The Applicable Statute of Limitations Must Be Disclosed

Under the final rule, the USDOL specified that it:

does not believe that a claims procedure would satisfy the statutory requirement if the plan included a contractual limitations period that expired before the review was concluded… A limitations period that expires before the conclusion of the plan’s internal appeals process on its face violates ERISA section 503’s requirement of a full and fair review process.  A process that effectively requires the claimant to forego the right to judicial review and thereby insulates the administrator from impartial judicial review falls far short of the statutory fairness standard and undermines the claims administrator’s incentives to decide claims correctly.[7]

The USDOL seems to suggest that any limitation time-period shorter than a year after the final claims decision does not allow a reasonable period after the conclusion of the appeal in which to bring a lawsuit and is accordingly unenforceable.  Additionally, “in addition to such traditional remedies, plans that offer appeals or dispute resolution beyond what is contemplated in the claims procedure regulations must agree to toll the limitations provision during that time.”[8]

 

[1] See Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits, 81 Fed. Reg. 92316 (December 19, 2016).

[2] Id. at 92317.

[3] Id. at 92321.

[4] Id. at 92322.

[5] Id. at 92324.

[6] Failure to comply constitutes a “minor error” if the violation was (1) de minimis, (2) non-prejudicial, (3) attributable to good cause or matters beyond the plan’s control, (4) in the context of an ongoing good-faith exchange of information, or (5) not reflective of a pattern or practice of non-compliance.  Id. at 92327.

[7] Id. at 92330.

[8] Id. at 92331.

In twenty years of handling employee benefit disputes, I have made a few observations of the ways to keep a long-term disability insurance claim in “approved status” or “open” as insurance companies say. A disability claimant’s medical file should include accurate and documented history of disability and should always be up to date. A disability claimant should avoid common pitfalls that can doom an otherwise valid claim.

Employees who file for disability insurance benefits have legitimate and provable claims. Many wait until their medical situations become unbearable before beginning the disability claims process. So why are so many claims denied by disability insurance companies? The reason is simple.

The filing of a long-term disability claim is an adversary process, and given this reality, appearances matter.

The claims departments of long-term disability insurers are populated with adjusters who believe that people seeking disability benefits do not want to work. In some of the most serious medical cases our firm has handled, the insurers have denied the claims for patently absurd reasons, bred of a kind of cynicism rather than objective factual consideration. A claimant seeking disability benefits cannot make the insurance company’s job easier. The interests are adverse. It is best to accept this, not fight it, and to adjust to avoid common claims filing mistakes.

What can a claimant do to make the process smoother?

1.Stop Using Social Media Now. Searching social media sites is the new weapon of choice in disability claims departments. Online searches are replacing surveillance as the preferred form of “gotcha” by the nation’s insurer. Claims files now regularly contain public images downloaded from Facebook or Instagram that are cited as evidence that a disabled claimant is essentially leading a normal life and should be able to work. We have written before about this before in the Summit. (See Long-Term Disability Insurance Update: An Online ‘Friend You May Not ‘Like’.)  Often, claimants do not heed the warning. Social media in this context is misleading. Unless a post is time-tagged, it is difficult to determine whether a posted picture of the claimant was taken recently (i.e., while claiming disability benefits) or years earlier. Sometimes insurers do not produce these materials until after a long-term disability appeal is filed, to deny the claimant the opportunity to explain the images or provide some context such as, ‘this photo was actually taken before I became sick.’ We can longer recommend a middle ground, sign off social media until the claim is over.

2. Reasonable Requests for Information Are Reasonable. Many claimants have experienced long delays in payment after they initiated a claim. Once the claim is approved, they are surprised when the insurer then asks for subsequent medical updates. Providing updates every year is likely to be found to be reasonable by a court unless there are some unique circumstances. By contrast, requesting monthly or bimonthly is likely to be found to be excessive.

3. Keep All Doctor Appointments.  A doctor’s appointment has a primary and secondary function.  The primary function is obviously to address and care for your medical condition. The secondary function is  to document (medically) the history of restrictions and limitations.  A claimant must be candid and forthcoming with treating doctors about how a condition is affecting one’s life.  Having a contemporaneous record of one’s health struggles will greatly assist in both the approval and continuation of a claim.

4. If You Can Work, Work. Many policies provide for partial or rehabilitative disability benefits. This means that if a claimant returns to work on a part-time basis, the insurer will make up the financial difference between the amount of the monthly disability benefit and the pay received from part-time employment.

5. Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Just Because Disability Insurers Lie, Never Stop Telling the Truth. Honesty is at the heart of any successful disability claim.  Honesty requires the truthful explanation of what limits a claimant’s ability to work. A claimant need not exaggerate any symptoms, but simply explain why a condition prevents performing the duties of a certain job.  For example, a cashier with a serious wrist injury can easily explain how that condition (loss of movement) prevents the regular performance of an essential job duty (counting back change).

These are but a few suggestions for taking a practical approach a disability claims and minimizing the adversity that exists between claimant and insurance company during the process.

The State Bar of Michigan has published an article authored by J.J. Conway, Esq. discussing the judicially mandated administrative claims process required by ERISA Section 503, 29 U.S.C. 1133.  The article, published in the Michigan Bar Journal, discusses ways that claimants may use the pretrial process more effectively. The article is entitled,”The Private Resolution of Employee Benefit Disputes: Section 503 and the Meaning of Evidentiary Materials in ERISA Cases”  (Sept. 2016). The article is available here.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has held that an insurer must advise a long-term disability claimant of its internal appeal requirement within the actual plan document in order to establish a failure to exhaust defense.

In Wallace v. Beaumont Healthcare Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, No. 16-cv-10625 (E.D. Mich. January 18, 2017), Reliance-Standard Life Insurance Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint on the basis that she failed to exhaust her internal administrative remedies prior to filing suit.  The court denied the motion, holding, in part, that Reliance Standard had not included an appeal requirement within the express terms of its disability insurance contract. A statement advising of a right to appeal a denied claim in a letter is insufficient to secure a dismissal, according to the court. The court cited the opinion of another federal court in Montoya v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., No. 14-cv-02740 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2015) which also found Reliance Standard’s long-term disability form contract lacking any requirement of an internal appeal. The Wallace court held:

Having reviewed the Reliance policy, which Plaintiff attached to her Amended Complaint, this Court finds no discussion of an exhaustion requirement. The only requirement for bringing a legal action set forth in the policy reads: “No legal action may be brought against us to recover on this Policy within sixty (60) days after written proof of loss has been given as required by this Policy.” The policy does not incorporate the terms of any other document. To the contrary, it expressly states that the policy represents “the entire contract.” Nevertheless, even if this Court construed the denial of benefits letter as a plan document, it would hold that the letter did not mandate exhaustion as a prerequisite to bringing suit.

 

The court’s ruling in Wallace underscores the importance of carefully reviewing a claimant’s long-term disability contract for a disability insurer’s own compliance with ERISA when an exhaustion defense is raised.  The court’s ruling also increases access to disabled employees whose claims for disability benefits have been wrongfully denied or terminated.

We have all been there at some point in our lives.  A promise is made.  A promise is broken.  We feel cheated, and maybe even a little hurt.  When you feel that you operate from a place of honesty, and others do not, the entire experience can be disillusioning.  In their simplest form, disability insurance contracts are promises.

In several years of assisting clients with their disability insurance claims, we have made a few observations.  Our clients are responsible. Our clients work hard.  They made choices about their financial future they believed were correct. They played by the rules.

It is not you. It is the insurers. Insurers change the rules.  It has almost become part of the insurance industry’s normal operating procedures. Often times, that is why an insurance company’s sales department is separated from its claims department. Promises made by one part of the organization may be more easily broken by another part of the company. Here, the law serves a purpose.  The law is here to hold insurers accountable.   Nothing more.   Nothing less, either.

Disability insurance cases involve two of the most emotional issues that many of us will ever face. Disability insurance cases involve the intersection of health and finances. Our firm understands this, and we approach these cases with this firmly in mind.

Below are a list of our firm’s guiding principles:

Total Investment.  Our approach is spend considerable time at the outset, getting to know our clients and the individual facts of their case.  While we are selective in the number and types of cases that we litigate at any one time, this is because once we sign on, we are fully invested.

Winning Your Case.  We strive win cases. We cannot guarantee legal outcomes, of course, because a host of different factors may affect a case’s outcome.  That fact does not change our focus.   We want to win on the quality of our written and public presentations.  We routinely face major corporate law firms with plenty of resources and armies of lawyers.  We want our presentations to win because we are on the right side of the issues and the law.  We are committed to submit quality presentations on behalf of our clients.  Every time.  No exceptions.

Individualized Service.  We strive to provide the individual level of client service that our clients have come to expect of us through the years. We are in constant communication with our clients.   We return all phone calls and email messages within one day. We are proud of our courtroom record, and we regularly review the hundreds of letters that we’ve received from satisfied clients to keep us focused on our commitment.  Most of these inspiring letters say the same thing — what was promised in the beginning is what was delivered at the end.  You should know, as our clients have attested, that once we sign on, there is no hand-wringing.  We are with you.  That is our commitment to you.

We look forward to serving you.