Aetna Disability Denial Upheld - Dell Disability Lawyers
In Jordan Harper v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, (Aetna), Plaintiff’s husband, Douglas Harper, died on December 31, 2017, in a single car accident to which there were no witnesses. The accident report noted there were no skid marks or any indication the driver of the car took any evasive action.
The death certificate showed the cause of death as “multiple blunt force injuries.” The autopsy report and the toxicology report showed that Mr. Harper was under the influence of both amphetamine and methamphetamine at the time of his death. Although he had a prescription for the medication, Adderall, which is an amphetamine, methamphetamine is an illegal Schedule II controlled substance. The toxicology report also indicated that the decedent had more amphetamine in his system that he would if he had only taken the Adderall according to the prescribed dose.
At the time of decedent’s fatal accident, he was employed by Integrated Services Company (Inserv) which, as part of its employee benefit plan (Plan), provided its employees with an accidental death and personal loss (ADPL) insurance policy. The policy was issued by Aetna which acted as both the administrator and payer of the claims.
One clause of the policy specifically stated that:
“No benefits are payable for a loss caused or contributed to by: Use of alcohol or intoxicants or drugs, while operating any form of a motor vehicle whether or not registered for land, air or water use. A motor vehicle accident will be deemed caused by the use of alcohol, intoxicants or drugs if it is determined that at the time of the accident you or your covered dependent were: Operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant or illegal drug; or Operating the motor vehicle while under the influence of a prescription drug in excess of the amount prescribed by the physician…”
Plaintiff, the wife of the decedent and also an Inserv employee, was the beneficiary of her husband’s ADPL policy. When she filled a claim for the death benefits, Aetna denied her claim on the grounds that the intoxication exclusion applied. Her administrative appeal was denied so she filed this ERISA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. She raised several issues, primarily that Aetna abused its discretion in denying her claim for death benefits.
The Court disagreed with Plaintiff and found it reasonable for Aetna to deny death benefits to her. The Court held that the plain language of the policy made it clear that since the toxicology report made it clear that her husband had amphetamine and methamphetamine in his blood stream at the time of the accident, the intoxication exclusion applied and Aetna did not abuse its discretion, and its decision to deny her death benefits was not arbitrary and capricious.
Application of the Intoxication Exclusion
The Court noted that “In determining whether Aetna abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s claim, the Court must consider whether it was reasonable for Aetna to find that decedent was under the influence of intoxicating drugs at the time of his death.” In making its decision the Court reviewed the same items Aetna reviewed in determining the intoxication exclusion applied and Plaintiff was therefore not entitled to death benefits. The documents included, among others:
- The death certificate. Cause of death was listed as due to “multiple blunt force injuries.”
- The Official Oklahoma Traffic Collision Report. There were “no skid marks or yaw marks on the road to indicate evasive movement from [the] vehicle.”
- The toxicology report. This showed the decedent’s toxicology was positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
- The autopsy report. This included information that in the car at the time of the crash, there was “a pipe containing a green leafy substance.”
- The lab analysis. Decedent’s toxicology report was positive for 0.35 mcg/ml of amphetamine and 2.2 mcg/ml for methamphetamine.
- Decedent’s prescriptions history. Decedent was taking the prescription drug, Adderall, which is an amphetamine.
Plaintiff argued that relying on the toxicology report alone was an abuse of discretion and that it should have hired an expert to analyze the report. She also argued that Aetna should not have relied on the claims analysis and registered nurse who reviewed the toxicology report and used a wrong chart in determining the blood levels of the decedent.
The Court found that it didn’t matter what chart was used, the toxicology report showed that “decedent tested positive for methamphetamine” which is a Schedule II illegal drug.
The Court held “not only did Aetna act reasonably in its decision to deny life insurance and basic and dependent ADPL benefits, but also its decision is supported by substantial evidence based on the intoxicant and illegal drugs exclusion.”
This case was not handled by our firm, but we believe it can be instructive for those who are wrestling with their insurance company over a claim for death benefits and the company is claiming it has no obligation to pay benefits under an intoxication exclusion. If you have questions about this case, a question about collection of accidental death benefits, or a question about a claim for short-term or long-term disability (LTD) benefits, contact one of our attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.
You can read about Aetna disability claims on this page.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Q: Can Aetna deny my application on the basis of pre-exisiting condition? Do they discriminate against the mentally ill?
Q: Are there any circumstances in which I can appeal LTD after the number of days Aetna gives you to appeal?
Q: What can I do to stop Aetna from harassing me and realize that not all disabilities are the same?
Dell Disability Lawyers file Lawsuit in Federal Court against Aetna after it denied long-term disability benefits to former software Developer
After Aetna denied Ms. Garner's long-term disability claim, Ms. Garner filed suit against Aetna, and the Court overturned Aetna's decision and ordered it to pay Ms. Garner's disability benefits
Court Rules That Aetna’s Failure To Consider Plaintiff’s Actual Job Duties Was Arbitrary And Capricious
Reviews from Our Clients
Very satisfied with the work of this team. Took well care of my case and took all the necessary time to be responsive and attentive when I had questions. Guided me through recovery and returning to normalcy. All thanks to Jason & Tabitha, thank you!
I’m extremely satisfied with the experience I have had with this firm from day one. The lawyer who has handled my case, Alex, is very efficient and attentive to all my questions and concerns. They are always aware of how my case has gone and they care about my health. I feel optimistic with them because they are very attentive during the process of my claim. I would not hesitate to recommend families and friends if in any situation they need their services. Kathleen as well has been very well and assisted me with this case. I highly appreciate everything they have done for me.
It’s unfortunate when disability insurance companies come after older disabled policyholders just to help their bottom line. It can be a living nightmare the damage they can do to a family. Dell Disability Lawyers are polite, understanding and knowledgeable. They call you back and answer any question you have no matter how unimportant it can be. The amount of stress they took off of myself and family was incalculable. I recommend them highly to take care of any disability case whether it be filing for benefits or reversing a claim decision. They are outstanding.
I could not have been happier or more appreciative of the hard work they performed on my behalf. I was well briefed on my case and it was closed in a timely manner with a financially successful resolution.
Mr. Symonds and Sonia as well as everyone else we have worked with throughout this process have been very helpful, professional and caring to our situation. We are very thankful to have this great team on our side.
Without them my LTD company was dropping my plan with me still suffering from my accident, even with doctor’s statements I’m still disabled. The LTD company didn’t want to advance my policy to the next stage of years of pay. Dell Disability Lawyers saved my policy, and helped to enforce the LTD company’s own policy (for its policy holder, me) that I would be covered still under the LTD policy I had paid for at my previous job, when my accident occurred. These lawyers know what they are doing and can help you too. LTD companies will try to drop you when you still need coverage just because they don’t want to pay on your policy anymore. Don’t let them break contract with ya because they are trying to get out of it. Hit em with legal action to ensure the continuation of your policy you paid for. Dell Disability worked very well for me and continue to do so.
I was denied long term disability benefits from The Hartford after being on it for years. I found Dell Disability Lawyers after doing research online. In a matter of days they responded and explained to me everything that would be done. Dell Disability Lawyers were able to settle my suit against The Hartford very quickly and responded to me quickly. I would definitely recommend this team of lawyers for anyone that is fighting for their disability insurance.
I have had nothing but a great experience with Dell Disability Law Firm. Mr. Alex Palamara and his team went above and beyond my expectations. They will respond to emails and phone calls in a timely manner. Thank you once again for taking my case.
This law firm is the best so far. MetLife denied me two times, they appealed two times for me and they won of course. So if you are on disability and want a chance at winning your case use this firm Dell disability lawyers, kind courteous understanding and they get the job done. You won’t be disappointed.