Cytec Industries and Broadspire Services discontinue disability insurance benefits for army veteran suffering from PTSD

An Appeals Court recently upheld the decision by Cytec Industries and Broadspire Services to discontinue short-term disability benefits for an army veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The case is a classic example of why it is imperative for the insured to respond timely to the request of the insurance company for additional/monthly forms documenting the ongoing disability. Let’s take a look at the Court’s decision.

Dennis Anderson worked at Cytec Industries in Waggaman, Louisiana since 1976. By 2005, he was working as a “panel operator,” running the computers and machinery that manufacture sulfuric acid. This job requires sharp concentration and attention to detail. In August 2005, Anderson and his disabled/wheelchair-bound wife were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. They settled in Atlanta, GA and have not returned to New Orleans.

Anderson suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He had served in the Vietnam War and in the first Gulf War. While he worked at Cytec he was able to manage the PTSD with medication and treatment. Anderson did not have his medication with him when he evacuated before the hurricane but received care within weeks at a PTSD clinic at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs hospital. Treatment notes from the psychiatrist and nurse describe an increase in PTSD symptoms with Anderson, including nightmares, intermittent auditory hallucinations, and irritability. Anderson was prescribed medication and began attending a weekly support group for PTSD patients.”¨ Cytec’s facilities reopened within several weeks. The company set up trailers for employees with damaged homes and offered to place Anderson in one. He declined. On several occasions he reported that he could not leave his wife in Atlanta nor could he find appropriate housing for her in New Orleans.

As a Cytec employee, Anderson was enrolled in two disability benefits programs, the Short-Term Disability Plan (STDP) and the Long-Term Disability Plan. The STDP requires an employee to have a “total disability” or be “totally disabled” to receive disability benefits. It defines “total disability” and “totally disabled” as “the complete inability of the Participant, due to sickness, injury or pregnancy, for which the Participant is and remains under the care of a licensed physician, to perform any and every duty pertaining to his occupation with his Employer and/or any similar occupation which his Employer may provide.” Anderson applied for STDP benefits in early October 2005. He supported his claim with a form filled out by his treating psychiatrist, Dr. Aida Saldivia.”¨ Dr. Saldivia noted that Anderson “has an increase in symptoms of PTSD due to evacuation from [New Orleans] – he’s having difficulty sleeping, having flashbacks and mood is depressed. He has difficulty concentrating and focusing on any one task.” The form showed that Anderson was unable to perform one test for “cognition/memory” but was able to complete other cognitive tests. The form also indicated that Anderson was able to go about the “activities of daily living” without assistance; in fact, during the time period in question, Anderson was actively involved in caring for his wife. Dr. Saldivia prescribed medication, noted that Anderson’s plans to return to work were “undetermined at this time,” and stated that Anderson’s symptoms had intensified and “rendered him incapable of performing job duties.”

Broadspire, the third-party administrator of the STDP who determines whether an insured qualifies for benefits, found support for a functional impairment and approved Anderson for STDP benefits from September 27, 2005 through November 21, 2005. Broadspire, skeptical of the extent of Anderson’s functional limitations, sent the case for an independent “peer review” and sought additional documentation from his care providers to determine whether benefits should continue after November 21. Anderson never sent any additional forms documenting his ongoing disability from Dr. Saldivia or others.

Dr. Elana Mendelssohn, Psy.D., conducted the initial independent peer review. She examined Anderson’s treatment records from September and October 2005, the form completed by Dr. Saldivia, and Anderson’s job description; she did not personally examine Anderson. Dr. Mendelssohn found that Anderson’s medical records did “not support a functional impairment.” She considered the symptoms Anderson had reported but stated that “it was unclear how these symptoms were impacting [Anderson’s] functionality”; she emphasized the lack of “specific examination findings or behavioral observations” that would substantiate an impairment in cognitive or psychological functioning.

In December 2005, Broadspire denied an extension of Anderson’s STDP benefits. Anderson appealed and sent to Broaspdire 38 additional pages of progress notes from Steven Barrett, his therapist. Broadspire then instituted a second independent peer review, this one conducted by Dr. Lawrence Burstein, who holds a Ph.D. in psychology. Dr. Burstein reviewed Anderson’s medical file, the prior peer review conducted by Dr. Mendelssohn, and Anderson’s job description. Dr. Burstein found that the medical records did not support a finding of functional impairment that would have precluded Anderson from working from November 21, 2005 through early March 2006, when he completed his review. Like Dr. Mendelssohn, Dr. Burstein found that the medical records documented Anderson’s subjective complaints and the impressions of his clinicians, but that they did not “contain specific examples of the claimant’s behavior or measurements of the claimant’s cognitive functioning to support these impressions.”

Broadspire informed Anderson that his appeal was denied in March 2006. Anderson appealed again. His final appeal was handled by Cytec’s plan administrator, Van Rensalier. She denied relief on July 10, 2006. In May 2006 – while Anderson’s final appeal was pending – Cytec terminated his employment.”¨ Anderson’s mental health underwent a temporary but severe downturn after Cytec’s final denial of his STDP claim. Auditory hallucinations that had plagued him intermittently intensified, and Anderson voluntarily entered inpatient treatment after recognizing signs of “homicidal ideation” toward his former employer. In 2007, after retaining counsel, Anderson attempted to submit additional materials to Cytec in further support of his STDP claim, including medical records from July 2006 to early 2007 and two brief notes from Veterans Affairs psychiatrists stating that Anderson was “completely unable to work” and “totally disabled.”

After getting no response from Cytec, Anderson filed suit in September 2007. After deciding to consider the administrative record as it stood at the time of Anderson’s last appeal – and to ignore the additional material Anderson mailed in afterwards – the district court found that the plan administrator did not abuse her discretion in denying the disability benefits and dismissed the case. Anderson timely appealed.

Legal Standards

The case was then heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court stated that, first, the Court must determine if the decision made by the plan’s administrator or fiduciary was arbitrary and capricious. This standard is used where a benefits plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan, as the STDP does here. A decision is arbitrary if it is made without a rational connection between the known facts and the decision.

Secondly, the Court must determine if the plan administrator’s decision to deny benefit is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance, and is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

The Court’s Analysis

The Court found that Anderson had failed to demonstrate that the denial of his benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The Court concluded that the evidence presented by Anderson to be mixed. The Court noted that Anderson had a history of working while managing his PTSD, and had made statements that he could not return to work because of housing issues for his wife. Additionally, there were notes from Anderson’s therapists indicating his judgment, insight, thought processes, and memory as fair and intact. Meanwhile, the reviewing experts of Cytec did not question the PTSD diagnosis or downplay the significance of Anderson’s self-reported symptoms of depression, persistent nightmares, flashbacks, hallucinations (which he reported during early visits but repeatedly denied in most subsequent visits), and anxiety, or the observation that Anderson’s concentration was “impaired.” Instead, these experts demonstrated that Anderson had not provided anything objective showing that the PTSD-related disability prevented him from performing his job, and concluded that the medical records did not support a finding of functional impairment that would have precluded Anderson from working. The Court noted that while these experts took into consideration Anderson’s subjective complaints and the conclusions of his doctors, the experts were not required to accept the opinion of Anderson’s treating physician that his symptoms rendered him incapable of performing his job. The Court noted that in this ‘battle of the experts’ the administrator is vested with discretion to choose one side over the other. The Court held that Cytec’s decision to follow the opinion of its experts was neither arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

The Court then stated that Cytec’s reliance on the analyses of two medical experts, each of whom are specialists and qualified experts in fields specifically related to Anderson’s symptoms, constitutes substantial evidence supporting Cytec’s STDP determination. Cytec’s decision, the Court concluded, is supported by substantial evidence – i.e., “more than a scintilla, less than a preponderance” of relevant evidence. Also, the court mentioned the fact that the independent experts reviewed Anderson’s records but did not examine him personally also does not invalidate or call into question their conclusions. The Supreme Court has held that plan administrators are not required to give special deference to the opinions of treating physicians.

The Court stated that under these circumstances, Cytec’s decision that Anderson was not “totally disabled” was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. Thus, while the Court would not endorse Cytec’s decision to deny benefits as obviously correct, it could not say that it was an abuse of discretion. The Court thought that Cytec was entitled to require some evidence of the functional impact of his disability; it did not abuse its discretion by denying further benefits in the absence of such evidence.

Finally, on the issue of whether the lower court was correct in ignoring the additional material Anderson mailed in after the final administrative appeal, the reviewing Court concluded that the material was irrelevant and failed to answer the question. However, the Court mentioned that in ERISA cases, courts generally cannot consider evidence outside the administrative record, and whether the material would have been considered by the court if it had been relevant is questionable. The Court did mention that in Vega v. National Life Insurance Services, Inc., the Court previously stated that if a claimant “submits additional information to the administrator… and requests the administrator to reconsider his decision, that additional information should be treated as part of the administrative record.” However, in this case, the Court described the situation as thorny and would not elaborate which way it may have ruled.


Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong Broadspire Appeal Package

We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Broadspire appeal.

Learn more

Sue Broadspire

We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Broadspire.

Learn more

Protect Your Benefits
Get Your Broadspire Disability Application Approved
We help claimants throughout the entire application process.

Learn more

Prevent a Broadspire Disability Benefit Denial
We manage every aspect of your disability claim following claim approval.

Learn more

Negotiate a Broadspire Lump-Sum Settlement

Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.

Learn more

Broadspire Reviews
(648)

Policy Holder Rating

0 out of 5
0
Read 0 reviews
0would recommend
5
0%
4
0%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%
Timely Payments
0.0out of 5
Handling Claim
0.0out of 5
Customer Service
0.0out of 5
Dependable
0.0out of 5
Value
0.0out of 5
Showing 8 of 648 Reviews
Unum

Unum Closed My Case Today

Reviewed by Scott C. on July 5th 2024   Verified Policyholder | March 2023 date of disability
Unum will keep you around, if they pay you 100 a month. But as soon as have to pay more than 2700 a month, they will drop you. We will be going to the attorneys office fir... read more >
Hartford

Ran me Around for Months

Reviewed by David on July 5th 2024   Verified Policyholder | January 2024 date of disability
Scammers. Immoral horrible people.
Reply
Sent on July 5th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell

David:

It’s horrible that Hartford did that to you.

Prudential

Denied but Not Denied but I am Denied

Reviewed by KDDK on July 5th 2024   Verified Policyholder | August 2022 date of disability
I went out in Aug. 2022 for neck pain. After seeing a neurologist I had to get an ACDF C5-7, it was also determined I had carpal tunnel in my right hand and bulging disk i... read more >
New York Life

Claiming They Are Not Receiving Paperwork

Reviewed by Macey on June 26th 2024   Verified Policyholder | February 2024 date of disability
After suffering from medical issues from my delivery in February, I had to have a colostomy bag placed. Now New York Life is trying to claim my condition was pre-existing ... read more >
Hartford

Truly Horrible and Immoral Company with No Customer Service

Reviewed by William M. on June 26th 2024   Verified Policyholder | June 2020 date of disability
My experiences with Hartford have been nothing short of cruel. They started off by claiming that having Glioblastoma, which has an expected life span of about fifteen mont... read more >
Hartford

Sent my Direct Deposit to a Strangers Bank Acct

Reviewed by Brad on May 2nd 2024   Verified Policyholder | February 2024 date of disability
I went on short term disability and The Hartford put my direct deposit into someone else’s bank account. Somehow they messed up a number or two and they are refusing to ... read more >
Sedgwick

AT&T Was Great and Sedgwick Horrible

Reviewed by From a great job to a complete nightmare on March 20th 2024   Verified Policyholder | March 2024 date of disability
My Physician recommended that I take some time from a toxic environment after several deaths in my family coupled with AT&T trying to run tenured employees out of the door... read more >
New York Life

Keeps claiming they will not approve claim for pre existing conditions but my illness is not preexisting

Reviewed by M.T. on February 15th 2024   Verified Policyholder | May 2023 date of disability
I have been appealing a claim for LTD for 8 months! New York Life keeps claiming they will not approve claim for pre existing conditions but my illness is not preexisting ... read more >
Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(0)
Helpful Videos
(896)
Showing 12 of 896 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(331)
Showing 8 of 331 Benefit Tips

Why Must Your Disability Insurance Lawyer Understand Your Disabling Condition?

When it comes to securing your disability insurance benefits, it's vitally important that your disability insurance lawyer thoroughly understands the symptoms and impact of your disabling condition. Doctors can help you create strong medical records, but they're not accustomed to dealing with the rigorous documentation disability insurance companies require. Lea... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #5 – Your Medical Evidence is Weak

If you're seeking long term disability benefits from an insurance company, you may be concerned that you're facing an uphill battle. Fortunately, the stronger your medical evidence, the greater the odds that your claim will be approved. On the other side of the coin, one of the most common reasons for denial of long term disability benefits involves too-weak med... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #4 - Your Doctor Is Misled By the Disability Company

When you're seeking disability insurance benefits, your medical records and treating physician's statement are two of the most important components of your claim. But because the insurance company has a vested interest in denying your disability insurance claim, it often will rely on tactics like ambushing your doctor with a phone call in an attempt to get them ... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #3 - Video & Social Media Surveillance

One thing many disability insurance claimants don't know about (or expect) from the claims review process involves video and social media surveillance. Disability insurance carriers often hire people to follow claimants around with a telephoto lens - or even send social media friend requests from fake accounts - to glean whatever information they can about the c... Read More >

How Do You Fight a Long-Term Disability Denial?

Getting a denial letter from your disability insurance company is one of the ultimate insults. You are sick and not able to work, yet your disability insurance company is telling you to return to work. The disability insurance company has denied your disability benefit claim and is basically calling you a liar. When receiving a disability denial letter... Read More >

Disability Denial Reason #2 - Change of Disability Definition & Vocational Review

One of the top reasons for terminating a claimant's long term disability benefits involves the change in the disability insurance policy's definition of "disability." This definition change often happens in conjunction with a vocational review, or an analysis of a claimant's medical records that tells the insurance company which jobs the claimant should be able ... Read More >

Disability Denial Reason #1 – Paper Review & IME

At Dell Disability Lawyers, we've seen insurance companies give countless reasons to deny long term disability benefits. However, most disability benefit denials tend to fall into one of a few categories - and one of the biggest ones is the paper review and independent medical exam (IME). Learn more about what this review process entails and what your claim file... Read More >

How to Apply for Reliance Standard Disability Benefits & Top 5 Reasons for a Claim Denial

At Dell & Schaefer we’ve handled hundreds of long term disability insurance claims against Reliance Standard, and have learned a few things in the process. When you’re experiencing an injury or illness that makes it difficult (or impossible) to work, it can be tempting to file a claim as quickly as possible – but unless a claimant has all their ducks in a row, this could actually delay the ultimate r... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(375)
Showing 8 of 375 Dell Disability Cases

Seven Surgeries and The Standard Still Denies Disability Insurance Benefits

Our client was employed with the State of Oregon as a Technical Support Representative. She sought disability through her employer provider LTD Policy with Standard due to low back, hip, and lower extremity pain. She had two hip, two knee and three back surgeries.After paying her for 1.5 years Standard hired a board-certified neurologist to perform a review ... Read More >

Sun Life Wrongfully Denies Disability After Paying For 23 Months

We represent a 57 year-old claimant who’s occupation was selling commercial vehicles for many years.  Her job was very physical as it required her to climb in and out of semi-trucks multiple times a day as well as operate them which was very strenuous. She went out of work in due to ongoing and severe debilitating right hip, low back, and bilateral knee pain... Read More >

Nurse Denied Long-term Disability Benefits by Lincoln After the Definition of Disability Changed

Our client, a registered nurse for Dignity Health, found herself in a difficult situation after being diagnosed with lumbar spondylosis and left knee arthritis. She continued to work, however, struggled while attempting to work through chronic lower back pain and left lower extremity radicular symptoms on a daily basis. Sadly, her condition failed to improve and... Read More >

Lincoln Reverses Decision to Terminate LTD Benefits of Corporate Attorney after Dell Disability Lawyers Appeals the Decision

The claimant is an 64 year old former Corporate Attorney and at a prominent Florida business law firm who was forced to cease working in his highly successful and rewarding profession, job, and career on January 27, 2021, and to seek disability compensation under his policies with Lincoln due to severe symptomatology stemming from or following a viral COVID-19 i... Read More >

Transportation Manager with Brain Injury Wins Unum Disability Benefit Appeal

Unum unjustly terminated our client’s disability insurance claim after it had approved and accepted liability for six months. Unum unreasonably concluded, without any evidence of improvement, that the claimant had resumed the sustained work capacity to perform the material and substantial duties of her high level occupation as a Transportation Division Manage... Read More >

Prudential reverses decision to terminate LTD benefits of MRI Tech with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis and degenerative Disc Disease

The claimant is a 58-year-old former MRI Technologist for Fairview Health Services who has long suffered from the debilitating effects of her chronic medical conditions. She has a history of neck pain as well as right arm pain and numbness dating back to 2005 with a reoccurrence of severe symptomatology in 2013. MRI of her cervical spine performed in August of ... Read More >

Engineer With Depression Wins Prudential LTD Appeal

The claimant is a former Senior Technology Services Engineer for Accolade, Inc. who was forced to cease working on May 25, 2021 and to apply for disability insurance benefits under his policy with Prudential because of severe symptomatology related to depression and anxiety. Prudential initially approved his claim for LTD benefits as his symptoms were demonstrat... Read More >

New York Life Approves Disability Benefits for School Teacher With Multiple Sclerosis

Our client, a former elementary school teacher suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, contacted our office after New York Life terminated her claim for short term disability benefits and spoke with Attorney Stephen Jessup. New York Life had initially approved her claim for short term disability benefits, but in doing so awarded benefits only on account of a mental health condition, even though our client had filed... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(765)
Showing 8 of 765 Lawsuit Stories

Cytec Industries and Broadspire Services discontinue disability insurance benefits for army veteran suffering from PTSD

An Appeals Court recently upheld the decision by Cytec Industries and Broadspire Services to discontinue short-term disability benefits for an army veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The case is a classic example of why it is imperative for the insured to respond timely to the request of the insurance company for additional/monthly forms documenting the ongoing disability. Let's take a look... Read More >

Broadspire Services terminate long-term disability benefits after paying for 8 years

A Federal Appellate Court recently upheld the decision by Eaton Corporation and Broadspire Services to discontinue the long-term disability benefits to Janice Curry after paying for 8 years. In Curry v. Eaton, the Court ruled that Eaton and Broadspire were not "arbitrary and capricious" in denying continuation of her long-term benefits. The Court found that the review of the treating physicians' reports conduc... Read More >

Disability company ignores evidence of disabling back pain and Federal Court reverses disability benefit denial

Once again we look at one of those cases that prove how important it can be to appeal the decision of a District Court. Suzanne Lee had been an employee of BellSouth for almost 10 years. She was diagnosed with chronic pain in October 2003 after she was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease in her back. She continued to work until January 18, 2005, when her pain became so severe that she could no longer sit ... Read More >

Seven pieces of medical evidence and disability company still denies claim for lack of "objective evidence"

When Suzanne Lee first had to miss work on January 18, 2005 for chronic back pain, she had been a manager at BellSouth for almost 10 years. She applied for short-term disability benefits under the BellSouth Short-term Disability Plan she participated in. If Broadspire Services, Inc., the company BellSouth hired to administer its health care trust and disability benefit plans, had approved her application, her ... Read More >

Disability battle against Verizon and Broadspire long-term disability plan lingers in courts for years

Lisa Pakovich and her former employer's long-term disability plan had been in and out of court for almost five years when Judge Michael Reagan listened to arguments between Pakovich's disability attorneys and Verizon Long-term Disability Plan on March 24, 2010. It was the third time he had considered this case in less than a year. He's not the first judge to consider Pakovich's claim. Three U.S. Court of Appea... Read More >

Broadspire ordered to pay disability insurance benefits but not attorney fees

If Judge Michael J. Reagan is beginning to tire of considering the case between Lisa Pakovich and her former employer's long-term disability plan, he may have good reason to. He has had to listen to arguments from both Pakovich's long-term disability attorneys and the Verizon Long-Term Disability Plan (Plan) attorneys at least four times in less than a year. He's not the first judge to consider Pakovich's clai... Read More >

HM Life and Broadspire wrongfully deny disability insurance benefits to a receptionist and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reverses claim denial

When Barbara Sterio's disability attorney presented arguments on February 11, 2010 before the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, he was unsuccessful in convincing the court to review her denial of benefits under the de novo standard of review. But the three judges reviewing Sterio's claim, found that even though the District Court had been correct in choosing to use the abuse of discretion standard ... Read More >

Systems support specialist wins disability benefits case against Coca-Cola and Broadspire

Theron Oliver was a Systems Support Specialist working for Coca-Cola, which provided long-term disability benefits to its employees. In October of 1999, Mr. Oliver was involved in a car accident. As a result, he developed severe headaches and pain and stiffness in his neck and upper back. He then applied for and received 26 weeks of short-term disability benefits before applying for long-term disability benefi... Read More >

Reviews from Our Clients

Request a Free Consultation

Our Lawyers Respond Same Day

5 Ways We Help Get Your Benefits Paid

Get Your Disability Application Approved

Our goal is to get your application for disability income benefits approved. Applying for disability insurance benefits can be a difficult process and the information you provide is critical. Most disability insurance companies look at your application in hopes of finding a reason to deny your claim. Your disability company will ask you to complete numerous forms, interview you, request lots of information, speak with your doctors and possibly request to have you examined by their "hired gun" doctor.

Through our experience of having helped thousands of disability insurance claimants, our disability insurance lawyers will guide you through the entire application process and give you the best chance to get your disability claim approved the first time.

Submit A Strong Appeal Package

If your disability insurance benefits have been wrongfully denied, then our disability insurance lawyers know exactly what it takes to get your disability claim approved. You only get once chance to submit an Appeal, therefore every piece of evidence that will support your disability claim must be included. The goal is to win your disability benefits at the Appeal level, but while preparing your Appeal you must consider how a federal judge will review your disability claim if your benefit denial is upheld.

Preparing a strong disability appeal package is an art that requires you to understand how the courts interpret your disability policy language, ERISA regulations / laws, and how to strategically present evidence in support of your definition of "disability". We encourage you to contact any of our attorneys for a free immediate review of your disability denial.

Sue Your Disability Company

98% of the disability insurance lawsuits filed by our law firm have resulted in either the payment of benefits or a lump-sum settlement agreement. Our disability insurance attorneys have filed ERISA governed and private policy long term disability insurance lawsuits against every major disability insurance company in state and federal courts nationwide and we love fighting for the "little guy" against the multi-billion dollar insurance company giants.

We have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for our clients and we would like the opportunity to provide you with a free review of your disability benefit denial. There are many complex factors in a disability benefit lawsuit and the legal battle to win long term disability benefits can be fierce.

Prevent A Disability Benefit Denial

Approval of long-term disability is a continuous process as every disability insurance company will evaluate your eligibility for benefits on a monthly basis. You can never let your guard down and assume that your disability company will continue to pay your benefits for as long as you think you need them.

Our disability insurance law firm offers a reasonable flat fee monthly claim handling service in which we handle every aspect of your long-term disability claim and do whatever it takes to make sure you are paid every month.

Negotiate a Lump-Sum Settlement

Let's discuss if a lump-sum settlement or buyout of your disability insurance claim is both available and makes financial sense for you. Our disability insurance lawyers have negotiated more than five-hundred million dollars in disability insurance buyouts and we know how to get you a maximum settlement. A disability insurance company is not required to offer a buyout and not every disability company offers them.

Questions About Hiring Us

Who are Dell Disability Lawyers?

We are disability insurance attorneys that know how to get your short or long term disability benefits paid. As a nationwide law firm we have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants throughout the United States to collect hundreds of millions of dollars of disability insurance benefits from every major disability insurance company.

In more than 98% of our cases, our attorneys have been able to either get our clients paid monthly disability benefits or obtain a one-time lump-sum settlement. Our disability insurance lawyers have seen it all when it comes to disability insurance claims and we know exactly what it takes for your disability claim to be approved.

We offer disability insurance attorney representation nationwide and we welcome you to contact any of our lawyers for a free immediate review of your disability claim. We also invite you to visit and subscribe to our YouTube channel where we have more than 850 videos and regularly provide tips to help protect your disability benefits.

Who do you help?

Our disability insurance attorneys help individuals that have either purchased a long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer. We have helped individuals in almost every type of occupation with monthly disability benefit payments ranging from $1,500 to $50,000.

Our clients include all types of employees ranging from retail associates, sales representatives, government employees, police officers, teachers, janitors, nurses, pilots, truck drivers, financial advisors, doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, consultants, IT professionals, engineers, professional athletes, business owners, and high level executives.

A strong understanding and presentation of the duties of your occupation is essential for securing disability insurance benefits.

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 insurance 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 phone, email, fax, or video conferencing sessions. 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 insurance attorney. We can be reached at 800-698-9159 or by email. Lawyers 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.

Helpful Resources