Skip to content

Helping Disabled Claimants Nationwide "Whatever It Takes" to Get Your Disability Benefits Paid

Facebook Twitter Get Updates

Free Phone Consultation Nationwide
CALL (800) 682-8331
Click to be called now

We offer no fee or cost unless you get paid

Sun Life deducts veteran disability benefits from claimant’s monthly long term disability check

Most long term disability insurance policies allow the insurance company to offset the monthly disability payments to an insured if the insured is receiving “other income” from certain sources. Often, these other sources include any Social Security disability or retirement benefits, workers’ compensation benefits, retirement plan benefits from the employer, or even earnings the insured receives from any other occupation or form of employment. The specific policy language governs exactly what the insurance carrier can consider an “offset” to reduce the claimant’s monthly benefit. Sometimes, however, the insurance policy is not crystal clear on what specifically may be used as an offset. Such a situation occurred in the case of James Riley v. Sun Life Insurance Company. In this case, the issue was whether Sun Life was allowed to reduce Riley’s monthly benefit because of veteran disability benefits he received from Veterans Affairs. The Court ultimately upholds Sun Life’s decision to reduce Riley’s monthly long-term disability benefits. Let’s take a closer look to see why the Court ruled the way it did.

Background Facts

As an employee of Sumaria Systems, Inc., James Riley participated in Sumaria’s employee welfare benefit plan that included Group Long-Term Disability Insurance. This plan was insured through Sun Life who was the fiduciary with respect to the Plan’s insurance policies and had discretionary authority to interpret the meaning of the policies’ terms and language. In 2004, Riley was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and filed a Sun Life disability claim. Sun Life awarded Riley benefits in January 2005. However, in December 2008, Sun Life recalculated Riley’s benefits and began to offset Riley’s VA benefits from his long-term disability benefits. Sun Life also demanded $20,831.06 for an overpayment.

ERISA Disability Lawsuit

Although he was still receiving long-term disability benefits from Sun Life, Riley was forced to retain a disability attorney and file an ERISA lawsuit in the United States District Court of Nebraska due to the offset reduction and the request for overpayment. With his lawsuit, Riley sough injunctive relief to prevent Sun Life from reducing his monthly benefit and collecting this overpayment.

In the suit, Riley argued that his VA benefits should not offset his disability payments under the Plan because nowhere in the Plan document are VA benefits specifically mentioned. The Plan defined “Other Income” as:

Any amount of disability or retirement benefits under:

  1. The United States Social Security Act to which; i) you are entitled; and ii) your Dependents may be entitled because of your disability or retirement;
  2. the Railroad Retirement Act;
  3. any other similar act or law provided in any jurisdiction.

While Riley noted that VA benefits are nowhere found in the policy’s definition, Sun Life contended that the “sweeping language in subsection (3)” justified its decision to view the VA benefits paid to Rile as “Other Income.”

The Standard of Review

Under the ERISA statute, when a plan reserves discretionary power with the plan administrator to construe uncertain terms or to make eligibility determinations, the administrator’s decision is reviewed by the Court only for an “abuse of discretion.” In other words, “the court must affirm the plan administrator’s interpretation of the plan unless it is arbitrary and capricious.” A court will thus uphold a plan administrator’s decision if it was reasonable. “Any reasonable decision will stand, even if the court would interpret the language differently as an original matter.”

The Nebraska Federal Court’s Analysis

The Court was left to determine whether it was “reasonable for a plan administrator to conclude that retirement or disability benefits received through veterans’ benefits statutes are ‘similar to’ retirement or disability benefits received through the Social Security Act and the Railroad Retirement Act.”

In determining whether the benefits were “similar to”, the Court first noted that the “Plan provides benefits, based on a percentage of past earning, for employees who become disabled and cannot work. In the manner, the Plan insures against a certain risk of loss, i.e., the loss of a stream of earned income due to the participant’s inability to work.” The Court then reasoned that “if Riley receives VA benefits in the form of a retirement pension or annuity, not linked to his disability or loss of income” then it would be unreasonable to consider that benefit “Other Income” because it that income was not compensating him for his inability to work. Similarly, the Court reasoned that if the VA benefits Riley received were due to some service-related disability unrelated to his multiple sclerosis, then it would also be unreasonable to consider that benefit as “Other Income” because it would not be compensating Riley for the stream of income he lost due to his disability of multiple sclerosis. Finally, the Court reasoned that if Riley was receiving VA benefits based on multiple sclerosis, then Sun Life’s determination to offset the benefits may be reasonable, because “such VA benefits serve to compensate Riley for the same risk of loss covered by the Plan, i.e., the loss of a stream of earned income that he enjoyed before his disability.”

The Nebraska Court’s Conclusion

The Court pointed out that although Riley urged the Court to conclude that his VA benefits are for a service-connected disability, there was no such evidence in the Administrative Record. The Court thus concluded that:

Sun-Life’s decision to off-set Riley’s disability benefits by his VA benefits was not an abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious, or unreasonable. Riley had an opportunity to demonstrate that such benefits were unrelated to the disability that led to the loss of stream of income from Sumaria and his receipt of disability benefits under the Plan, and he did not provide such evidence to Sun Life for the Administrative Record. Absent such documentation, it was reasonable for Sun Life to infer that Riley’s VA benefits were related to the same disability that caused him to be unable to work at Sumaria and that led to his receipt of disability benefits under the Plan.

The Court accordingly concluded that Sun Life’s decision to conclude that Riley’s VA benefits fell under the Plan’s definition of “Other Income” was reasonable, and as such Sun Life’s decision to offset those benefits from his long-term disability benefit was upheld.

The Court’s ultimate decision was based on the fact that the Administrative Record was absent of any evidence regarding the reasoning behind Riley’s VA benefits. In ERISA cases, the review of the courts is limited to the administrative record that was before the administrator of the plan. The administrative record is closed after all the administrative remedies are exhausted. It is thus important to document thoroughly in the Administrative Record any potential issues during litigation that may arise after the Administrative Record is closed. Attorneys Dell & Schaefer have extensive experience in ERISA disability appeals as well as litigating all long term disability insurance denials.

There are 9 opinions so far. Add your comment now.

TwoDuxx:

Is this the most current? I’m currently in this situation.

8th Circuit: Court Reverses Long-Term Disability Offset
11/14/2011
By Chris W. McCarty

In a case brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision to offset an employee’s veterans’ disability benefits from a long-term disability award provided by the employer.

James Riley worked for Sumaria Systems until multiple sclerosis no longer allowed him to do so. Riley soon made a claim for ERISA-qualified long-term disability benefits through Sumaria’s provider, Sun Life and Health Insurance. The provider approved Riley’s application and started paying benefits in January 2005.

Pursuant to the Veterans’ Benefits Act, Riley also received disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The military considered Riley’s multiple sclerosis a “service-related disability.” After learning of the VA benefits, Sun Life took the position that it could offset those benefits from Riley’s long-term disability payments. Sun Life believed the VA benefits were “other income” under the long-term disability plan, defined as “any amount of disability or retirement benefits under: a) the United States Social Security Act; b) the Railroad Retirement Act; c) any other similar act or law provided in any jurisdiction.”

Riley appealed Sun Life’s position internally to no avail, then brought the matter to federal court. The district court agreed with Sun Life, holding that the company could claim an offset because both the long-term disability and VA benefits stemmed from multiple sclerosis.

But the 8th Circuit disagreed, reversing the district court and refusing to recognize Sun Life’s offset. The court felt that the Veterans’ Benefits Act was not a “similar act or law” when compared to the U.S. Social Security Act or the Railroad Retirement Act. It viewed those laws as insurance programs, while considering the Veterans’ Benefits Act obligatory compensation for injuries to servicemen and servicewomen.

Riley v. Sun Life and Health Insurance Co., 8th Cir., No. 10-2850 (Oct. 7, 2011).

Thanks

Attorney Stephen Jessup:

TwoDuxx,

Some policy expressly carve out an offset for VA benefits, but for those that don’t this is highly cited case law to make the argument the insurance carrier has no right to offset the VA benefit. One word of caution: as the VA will consider a condition “service-related” you must be careful that the insurance carrier does not deny coverage under the provisions that indicate benefits will not be paid for any disability that was a result of war, declared or undeclared. This happens most often in mental health claims for recent military vets.

TwoDuxx:

Thanks for your reply. I’m a Vietnam Veteran. I provided proof of my disabilities to the insurance company. I have numerous service connected disabilities totaling 210%. I’m rated 100% total and permanent, unemployable and homebound. I have sent a letter of appeal. The VA Compensation was not specifically listed as other income, defined or even mentioned in the certificate or policy.

Attorney Stephen Jessup:

TwoDuxx,

If the carrier isn’t mentioning it, then it would appear that it is not “other income.” However, it seems as if you have a fight on your hands for the benefit itself. In the event your appeal is denied, please feel free to contact us to discuss how we may assist you.

Greg K.:

My STD and LTD coverage from Sedgwick has a number of exclusions, two of which concern me as a 100% disabled veteran. Those two items are”… but are not limited to” and “Other federal or state disability plans”.

I have not yet applied for either STD or LTD partially due to uncertainty about this question.

The entire list of exclusions is as follows:

Your LTD benefits are reduced by income benefits you receive (or may be eligible to receive, even if you do not apply) from certain other sources. These sources include, but are not limited to:

– Workers’ Compensation;
– Federal Social Security (including benefits for family members);
– Other federal or state disability plans;
– A governmental retirement system;
– No-fault auto insurance;
– Awards or settlements received from a third party if your disability may have been caused by the acts or omissions of the third party;
– Other group disability plans or policies of HP or any other employer; or
– Retirement benefits under the [company pension plans] if you are age 65 or older.

Attorney Stephen Jessup:

Greg,

The sources of other income that offset your benefit listed above are very common in all employer provided policies.

James L. Bush:

Thanks for your update. I have filed a class action in the 9th District Court.

see James L Bush vs. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA.

Sam Johnson:

Are you suggesting that any VA service-connected disability may disqualify you for receiving LTD benefits for the same problem?

Attorney Stephen Jessup:

Sam,

Depending on the specific facts of an individual case and the language contained in the policy it is possible that a disability that is attributed to “an act of war” or military service can be excluded from coverage under an employer provided LTD plan.

Add your comment

Please be advised that your comment will be public. Any information contained on our website is for informational purposes only and not legal advice. If you are seeking assistance with your claim, then please use our confidential Free Consultation form.



Your name will appear with the comment


Your email address will not be published

Please note: The comments are moderated.
Your comment will need to be approved before it will appear on this page. No off topic post will be accepted. Our attorneys may respond to your comment.

Subscribe without commenting:


Request a Free Consultation

Click here or call 800-682-8331 now!

We respond the same day.
We represent disability insurance claimants all over the United States.

Testimonials

Read what our clients say about us.

  • Rev D. I contacted Dell & Schaefer after a second denial by my disability insurance company. Initially, I approached the insurance company by myself and my case was denied. I...› continue
  • Katherine K. My experience was great. My attorney treated me with respect, kept me informed, and acted in my best interest. Why would you recommend Attorneys Dell &...› continue
  • Christine C. I had a very positive experience working with Dell & Schaefer. While attempting to handle it on my own, my long-term-disability claim had been denied two previous times...› continue

More Testimonials