Court Rules That Aetna’s Failure To Consider Plaintiff’s Actual Job Duties Was Arbitrary And Capricious
Aetna’s Rationale for Denial
In Patterson v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, C.A. No. 17-3566 (3rd Cir. 2019) through his employer, First Consulting Group, Inc. (“FCG”), is a pharmaceutical consulting firm, Patterson became covered by a long-term disability policy underwritten by Aetna. Patterson’s occupation with FCG was characterized as “Director, Business Services” or “System Development Technical Director.”
In January 2007 Patterson underwent a lumbar spine reconstruction surgery performed by a board certified in orthopedic and spinal surgery. After the surgery, Patterson was unable to work and began a program of physical therapy and pain medication. In accordance with the terms of the Policy, Aetna approved Patterson for LTD benefits, beginning February 2007 with a maximum benefit period to August 2037 if his medical condition remained unchanged. In 2014, Aetna terminated those benefits because it concluded that Patterson was “no longer disabled.” Patterson’s long-term disability policy defined “disability” as follows:
You will be deemed to be disabled on any day if:
- you are not able to perform the material duties of your own occupation solely because of: disease or injury; and
- your work earnings are 80% or less of your adjusted predisability earnings.
“Own occupation” is not defined in the policy. Aetna found that Patterson was not disabled because he could fulfill the material duties of his “own occupation” as performed “in the national economy.” Aetna further determined that Patterson’s “own occupation” “in the national economy” was “sedentary” and – although Patterson had limitations and could not do a job in a “heavier category” – he could perform “sedentary” work. Aetna’s decision was not based on whether Patterson could do his actual “job as performed for his specific Employer,” which Aetna considered to be more demanding than his “occupation as it exists in the national economy.” More specifically, Aetna found that Patterson’s occupation as it exists in the national economy was lighter than his actual job because his actual job required travel.
The District Court Decision
After Aetna denied Patterson’s internal appeal, he brought an ERISA claim. On cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court determined that Aetna’s “national economy” interpretation of “own occupation” was contrary to the plain language of Patterson’s policy in light of the 3rd Circuit’s prior decision in Lasser v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 344 F.3d 381 (3d Cir. 2003), and that own occupation must involve consideration of Patterson’s actual duties as performed before the onset of disability.
The District Court then found that travel and standing to give presentations were material duties of Patterson’s own occupation. The District Court concluded that Aetna’s decision to terminate benefits was arbitrary and capricious because Aetna did not consider whether Patterson could perform his actual job duties and, even if it had done so, Patterson could not perform those duties. Aetna timely appealed the District Court’s decision.
The 3rd Circuit Decision And Ruling
Aetna argued on appeal that it was allowed to construe the term “own occupation” in Patterson’s long-term disability policy to mean Patterson’s occupation as performed in the national economy. Aetna further argued that, under its “national economy” interpretation, substantial evidence supported the decision to terminate Patterson’s benefits. The 3rd Circuit disagreed.
The 3rd Circuit agreed that Aetna had discretionary authority to interpret Patterson’s policy, but precedent – particularly Lasser – established that “own occupation” is unambiguous and that Aetna’s “national economy” interpretation of the term was unreasonable. In Lasser, the 3rd Circuit interpreted a long-term disability policy that considered a person to be “disabled … if as a result of injury, illness or disease he is capable only ‘of performing the material duties of his/her regular occupation on a part-time basis or some of the material duties on a full-time basis.’”
There, the Court held that the term “regular occupation” is unambiguous and refers to “the usual work that the insured is actually performing immediately before the onset of disability,” at least where no other definition appears in a policy or has been otherwise anticipated by the parties. Consequently, the court rejected Reliance Standard’s interpretation of “regular occupation” as referring to a job “in the general economy.”
Despite this clear precedent, Aetna argued that Lasser is not controlling because the policy in Lasser used the term “regular occupation” whereas the policy here used the term “own occupation.” But the Court noted that it has equated “own occupation” in prior rulings with Lasser’s definition of “regular occupation.” Significantly, the Court also noted that other courts have recognized that the distinction between “own occupation” and “regular occupation” is one without a legal difference.
Further, the Court noted, even if a difference between “own occupation” and “regular occupation” could be teased out, the words “own occupation” would seem even more directly to capture the idea of one’s actual job duties than the words “regular occupation.” In short, the Court concluded that is no reason to treat “own occupation” and “regular occupation” as being meaningfully differently.
In fact, the Court noted that Aetna itself seemed to subscribe to that view. Citing a prior Aetna lawsuit in Connecticut – Peck v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 495 F. Supp. 2d 271 (D. Conn. 2007) – the Court pointed out that Aetna successfully argued that the terms “own occupation” and “regular occupation” are interchangeable. And, importantly, that case was litigated while Aetna was paying benefits to Patterson under his policy. The Court found that given Aetna’s vigorous arguments in Peck that “own occupation” and “regular occupation” have the same meaning its assertions to the contrary in Patterson were, to say the least, quite troubling.
The Court found it further concerning that Aetna inexplicably attempted to distinguish Peck by claiming that technically the decision of a District Court in Connecticut is not determinative and carries little precedential weight in District Court in New Jersey without acknowledging that its own argument was the basis for that holding.
The 3rd Circuit held that because it concluded that “own occupation” and “regular occupation” – in the absence of a clear definition in the Policy – should be construed in the same manner and, therefore, its prior decision in Lasser controlled its interpretation of “own occupation” in Patterson. And the unambiguous plain meaning of that term is “the usual work that the insured is actually performing immediately before the onset of disability.” As such, Aetna’s “national economy” interpretation was deemed impermissible because it conflicted with the plain meaning of “own occupation” and was neither established by Patterson’s policy nor contemplated by the parties.
This case was not handled by our office, but it may provide claimants guidance in their pursuit of compensation of disability insurance benefits. Please feel free to contact our office and to speak with one of our disability attorneys for a review of your disability insurance policy and to discuss how we may be able to assist you in securing benefits.
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.