4 reasons that make a disability insurer’s denial of benefits arbitrary and capricious

Anyone with experience with ERISA lawsuits knows the term “arbitrary and capricious.” The term, which describes the standard employed by courts in reviewing most ERISA governed claim denials, acts a shield for insurers and protects their decisions to deny claims as long as they are found to be “rational in light of the plan’s provisions.” So what does “arbitrary and capricious” actually mean?

An analysis of recent case law can help answer this question.

In Keegan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”), a Kentucky district court found that MetLife’s denial of benefits to Mr. Keegan was arbitrary and capricious when MetLife terminated benefits in the absence of medical improvement, ignoring cognitive impairments, and failing to conduct an examination of the claimant, relying instead on file reviews.

History of Mr. Keegan’s disability claim

As a senior engineer for Samsung, Mr. Keegan held a demanding position that essentially required him to be on call 24 hours/day and sometimes required that he sleep at the office, if necessary, while working on a project.

In February 2009, he was diagnosed with Stage IV mantle cell lymphoma and underwent chemotherapy treatment. Mr. Keegan was treated with eight cycles of high-dose chemotherapy between February and August 2009 and as a result he suffered from weakness, fatigue, nausea, fevers, infections, bone pain, and other side effects.

In addition to the common physical side effects from chemotherapy, Mr. Keegan reported feelings of stress and anxiety as well as depression. Before his cancer diagnosis, he had been diagnosed and intermittently treated for bipolar disorder, depression, and anxiety, although these conditions had not previously interfered with his work. These conditions were exacerbated during his chemotherapy treatment and after.

Mr. Keegan started noticing changes in his cognition during the second and third cycle of chemotherapy, which worsened as treatment progressed. Those cognitive did not resolve after his chemotherapy treatments ended.

Mr. Keegan received the maximum amount of short-term disability benefits and MetLife subsequently approved Keegan’s claim for LTD benefits. Following his chemotherapy treatment, Mr. Keegan saw various doctors including his oncologist, neurologist, primary care and several mental health professionals. All of Mr. Keegan’s physicians noted Mr. Keegan’s significant cognitive impairments and found Mr. Keegan to be unable to work due to those impairments.

In early 2011 Mr. Keegan’s psychiatric symptoms began to improve and by April 2011 his treating physicians noted that his psychiatric symptoms were in remission. Importantly, Mr. Keegan reported that “his depression has improved but he doesn’t see much difference in his cognitive skills.” Despite these reports, during an interview with one of MetLife’s in-house psychiatric consultants on June 20, 2011, the consultant noted that “memory issues and cognitive issues are not currently documented in the medical records and there was not current information to support a Cognitive DO, NOS.”

In a letter dated July 13, 2011, MetLife informed Mr. Keegan that his claim was denied, because he no longer met the plan’s definition of disability. When Mr. Keegan’s appeal was denied he filed an ERISA lawsuit in a Kentucky Federal District Court.

After reviewing MetLife’s decision the court found that MetLife’s determination was arbitrary and capricious since MetLife terminated benefits in the absence of medical improvement, ignoring cognitive impairments, and failing to conduct an examination of the claimant, relying instead on file reviews.

Absence of Medical Improvement and Ignoring Cognitive Impairments

Mr. Keegan did not dispute that his psychiatric symptoms improved to the point that he stopped seeing his psychiatrist in April 2011, but maintained that his cognitive deficiencies were separate and had not improved at the time MetLife discontinued benefits.

The Court agreed and remarked:
“Cancellation of benefits in the absence of evidence showing that the claimant’s condition had improved and without an explanation for the apparent discrepancy from earlier assessments is arbitrary and capricious.”

Citing 6th circuit precedent the court explained that the plan administrator must have some reason for the change.

Failing to conduct an examination of the claimant

Additionally, the court noted that “MetLife’s failure to conduct a physical exam, where it had reserved the right to do so, is further evidence of an arbitrary and capricious decision”.

Relying on file reviews

Rather than conduct a physical exam, MetLife relied on the absence of current complaints of cognitive deficiencies demonstrated in a record review to deny Mr. Keegan’s benefits. Since MetLife was essentially making a credibility determination, the court concluded “the lack of a physical exam further supports a finding that the determination was arbitrary and capricious”.

Having determined that MetLife’s decision was arbitrary and capricious the court awarded Mr. Keegan retroactive benefits.

It is important to note that no factor alone was dispositive and that all factors weighed together supported the court’s finding that the insurer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Find more Metlife cases on this page.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

Leave a comment or ask us a question

FAQ

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Reviews   *****

Melody K.

We worked with attorney Cesar Gavidia and the experience was absolutely an A++++. As a professional, I can tell you that EVERY aspect of my experience with this law firm was superior and Cesar far exceeded any expectations I had! They don’t miss a beat! Cesar walked us through every aspect of our case. He made sure we had all the information that we needed in order to make the most informed decision. His input was invaluable and he clearly knows the ins and outs of this area of law. He’s a solid negotiator, fabulous coach and won us a terrific settlement.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us