Appellate Court upholds Prudential’s decision denying disability benefits to insured when he refused to attend an IME Exam

Recently, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that veteran career consultant, Anthony Polich, was not entitled to Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits after he refused to attend an Independent Medical Exam (IME) and to release relevant medical data requested by the LTD Plan administrator, Prudential Financial.

Polich appealed District Court’s conclusion that Prudential’s requests for an IME and additional medical data were reasonable.

Anthony Polich worked as a veteran career consultant for the State of Iowa from 1997 until 2006 when he resigned after becoming disabled. He was covered by a LTD insurance policy issued to the State by Prudential and on July 20, 2006, an application for benefits was submitted on Polich’s behalf asserting that he was unable to work due to his disability. The application stated that Mr. Polich was suffering from Meniere’s disease – disease of the inner ear – and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The application also included a statement prepared by a clinical psychologist identifying Mr. Polich’s impairment/limitation as “Cognitive Disorder NOS,” i.e. not otherwise specified, and explaining that Mr. Polich was experiencing dizzy spells, depression, and anxiety.

Prudential denied Polich’s Meniere’s disease disability claim on the ground that he was not disabled.

On October 4, 2006, Prudential denied Mr. Polich’s claim, contending that he was not disabled. Mr. Polich subsequently appealed to Prudential’s Appeal Review Unit who upheld the denial and advised Polich of his right to a second appeal for “a final decision.” Prudential later explained that Polich’s complete appeal had to be submitted by July 12, 2007. After submitting additional materials to supplement his appeal, Polich was informed by Prudential of its arrangement for an independent medical examination (IME).

Polich refused to attend the IME requested by Prudential.

On or about July 11, Prudential arranged for an independent medical exam by a neuropsychologist that Polich refused to attend. Prudential then asked Polich to release the “raw data” on which his physician relied when writing the statement in Polich’s application. Polich again declined to comply and so Prudential had a neuropsychologist review the information already in Polich’s file.

The neuropsychologist decided that the information did not show that Polich had a psychological or cognitive impairment and Prudential thereby concluded that Polich failed to prove that he was unable to work because of Menire’s disease and denied his appeal on the ground that he was not disabled.

District Court granted Prudential’s motion for summary judgment.

After his second appeal was denied, Polich hired an Iowa disability attorney to sue Prudential for breach of the policy. In its defense, Prudential argued that when Polich refused to attend the IME and to release the raw data, he failed to comply with two policy provisions that were required to be eligible for coverage. One provision stated that Prudential could require an insured “to be examined by doctors of its choice as often as it is reasonable to do so, and that refusal to be examined”¦ may result in denial or termination of the insured’s claim.” The other provision provided that “in some cases, the insured will be required to give Prudential authorization to obtain additional medical information, and that Prudential will deny the insured’s claim”¦ if the appropriate information is not submitted.”

Prudential contended that Polich’s claims failed because of his noncompliance and the district court agreed. On those grounds, the court entered judgment in favor of Prudential.

Court of Appeals review of the District Court’s ruling – whether Prudential’s requests were reasonable

Polich appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that Prudential’s requests for an IME and additional information were unreasonable. Furthermore, Polich argued that a jury rather than the court should have decided whether such requests were reasonable.

The court of appeals agreed that reasonableness is often a question for a jury, however, where only one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the undisputed facts, the question can be resolved by the court. After reviewing the decision without bias, the court of appeals concluded that Prudential’s requests for an IME and raw data were reasonable as a matter of law. Accordingly, Polich breached the terms of the Prudential disability policy and was not entitled to disability benefits.

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 help Prudential claimants nationwide?

We represent Prudential clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a Prudential disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Prudential. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by Prudential.

How do you help Prudential claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Prudential long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with Prudential:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

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   *****

Darrell H.

Mr. Symonds, and all staff that I worked with at Dell & Shaefer, were professional in every aspect throughout the process of filing for a contested claim of Long Term Disability with The Hartford. After having approved Short Term Disability, and with no improvement in my condition, The Hartford somehow found that I was no longer disabled.

Mr. Symonds conducted research and collected collaborative documentation from all health care professional involved with my treatment, diagnosis, short/long term prognosis, and relevant history. In all aspects of preparation to submit my claim during the appeal process, Dell & Schaefer was diligent in tending to my interests and in preserving my privacy. Ultimately, my appeal was approved, Long Term Disability was retroactively enacted, and diligent service continues today, with Mr. Symonds and staff remaining accessible and responsive during every step of the way.

Bottom Line: I would engage Dell & Schaefer, and specifically Mr. Jay P. Symonds, for any legal needs; especially any issues with Short/Long Term Disability with The Hartford or any of their kind.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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