• Prudential Disability Denial For Chronic Headaches Reversed By California Judge

California Court Overturns Prudential Denial of Disability Benefits

In the case of Gallegos v. Prudential, a California Federal District in the Northern District of California entered an order instructing Prudential to reinstate the benefits to an insured suffering with Lupus. This ruling provides a plethora of useful information in arguing claims for disability stemming from Lupus, but also for any physical medical condition in which an insurance carrier argues a “lack of objective evidence” to support disability.

Prior to filing for disability Gallegos worked as a drug safety operations manager for a pharmaceuticals company in California. She initially filed a claim for disability due to severe headaches with associated altered vision, but was able to return to work after a brief period of short term disability. However, as luck would have it, within a few months of her return to work she had to undergo rotator cuff surgery, necessitating another disability claim. Following surgery and recovery she attempted to return to work, but after just six months she was forced to file another claim for disability due to persistent headaches and fatigue, which would later be diagnosed by her doctors as Lupus. Prudential initially approved her claim for short term disability benefits and then her claim for long term disability benefits after short term benefits ceased. However, her approval of her LTD claim was predicated on the results of her next office visit with her doctor. Once the records from the visit were received, Prudential had a paper file review of her claim performed by an outside doctor. Unsurprisingly, the opinion of the reviewing doctor resulted in the denial of Gallegos’ claim for LTD benefits.

In furtherance of appealing the denial of benefits, Gallegos underwent a Functional Capacity Examination, the results of which indicated she did not have the ability to perform the physical demands of her occupation. She then had her file reviewed by an independent Vocational Consultant, whose report provided additional support that based on her medical conditions and the demands of her pre-disability occupation Gallegos would not be able to meet the required demands of her occupation. Additionally, during the course of her first appeal, following an independent medical examination by the Social Security Administration that verified cognitive limitations stemming from her diagnosis of Lupus, Gallegos was awarded Social Security disability benefits.

In response to Gallegos’ appeal Prudential sent her file to be reviewed by two independent doctors (rheumatology and neurology) for the purposes of conducting additional paper reviews. Despite staunch support from her treating neurologist, Prudential’s reviewing neurologist found no evidence disability from a neurological viewpoint. The reviewing rheumatologist, having admitted she did not review the entire file, opined that she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to establish a diagnosis of Lupus. Prudential essentially ignored the information provided on appeal and instead relied on opinions of its two hired file review doctors to deny Gallegos’ appeal.

In response to the denial of her appeal, Gallegos availed herself of the voluntary appeal process and provided Prudential, amongst other medical records, with abnormal lab results, which objectively identified a positive test result for Lupus. The positive test results would certainly undermine the opinion of Prudential’s reviewing rheumatologist who had found no evidence to support a diagnosis of Lupus. Nevertheless, Prudential provided the updated medical information for review to the same two doctors who denied her first appeal. Even when faced with objective proof of the Lupus, Prudential’s doctors questioned the validity of the testing and held true to their initial opinions that there was no indication of medical restrictions and limitations that would necessitate disability.

Following the final denial of benefits Gallegos filed suit under ERISA. Fortunately for Gallegos the Judge saw her claim much differently than Prudential and overturned the denial of benefits. In rendering its opinion the Court noted several key factors as to why it believed Prudential was wrong in denying Gallegos’ benefit. The Court determined that while Prudential’s prior approval of disability did not shift the burden back to Prudential to provide proof as to why disability was no longer supported, the Court did find that the earlier decision to approve LTD benefits was relevant and Prudential’s failure to identify a significant change in Gallegos’ condition was a factor to be considered. The Court also noted that the consistent opinions from Gallegos’ treatment providers presented a persuasive case for disability and that Prudential had given no meaningful weight to their examinations and opinions. The Judge also stated that the FCE was not given proper consideration by Prudential’s doctors and that the findings of the examination were probative and deserving of “valued consideration” by Prudential. With regards to the test results indicating a diagnosis of Lupus and Prudential’s attempt to discredit same, the Court noted that while a lab test alone would not establish disability, when considered in conjunction with other evidence in Gallegos’ claim file – such as the FCE and opinions of her treatment providers – the Court found no basis for Prudential’s disregard of her symptoms as self-reported and denial of her claim. Furthermore, speaking as to the nature of Lupus, the Court added “Because Gallegos might be stable at various points does not mean that the debilitating symptoms will not be exacerbated if she return to work on a full time basis.”

This Court decision provides much valuable information in presenting disability claims resulting from Lupus and will hopefully serve as a gateway for more Courts scrutinizing and rejecting the tactics employed by insurance companies when denying disability insurance claims due to Lupus.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

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.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Kevin R. D.D.S.

I first heard of Dell & Schaefer through the internet. Their reviews were very solid. I also asked several people who had experience with disability claims about who they might recommend. Greg Dell kept coming up. Finally I asked my financial advising firm in Dallas who they knew and got the name Greg Dell. So I felt pretty good with recommendations from all over the country. I spoke with Greg on the phone and he was very informative and felt he could help me with my case. He walked me through what documentation was required and what to expect from his fees and time and what to expect from the insurance company.

The process was difficult to go through and at times he had to act more as a psychologist than a lawyer with me as the insurance company fights these types of claims formidably. He handled the claim extremely well and I recommend his services highly. He appears to be well known in the insurance industry and that helps as they know he is thorough and tough.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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