• Denied LTD Benefits by The Standard? Lawyer Tips to Win an ERISA AppealDenied LTD Benefits by The Standard? Lawyer Tips to Win an ERISA Appeal
  • The Standard Insurance Company Long Term Disability Benefit Claims, Denials, Appeal and Lawsuit HelpThe Standard Insurance Company Long Term Disability Benefit Claims, Denials, Appeal and Lawsuit Help
  • The Standard: What To Expect With A Long Term Disability Benefit ClaimThe Standard: What To Expect With A Long Term Disability Benefit Claim
  • Who Makes The Final Decison To Approve Or Deny Disability Insurance Benefits? (Ep. 17)Who Makes The Final Decison To Approve Or Deny Disability Insurance Benefits? (Ep. 17)
  • A Senator's View of ERISA Disability Insurance Claims (Ep. 20)A Senator's View of ERISA Disability Insurance Claims (Ep. 20)
  • The Standard Insurance Company - Disability Buyout or Lump Sum Offer?The Standard Insurance Company - Disability Buyout or Lump Sum Offer?

California disability attorney sues Standard Insurance Company for denial of long term disability benefits payments to paraplegic

In the case of D. Nielsen Pollock Vs Standard Insurance Company, filed at the District Court for the Southern District Of California, the plaintiff complained that the Standard Insurance Company (Standard Insurance) have breached the Employee Retirement Income And Security Act Of 1974 (ERISA) and suing for the recovery of disability benefits under the terms of an employee benefit plan for which Standard Life is the insurer of benefits under the “DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION HOLDINGS INC. GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICY.”

The Nature of the Complaint Against Standard Insurance Company

The plaintiff was formerly employed as an estimator and Project Manager for the Dillingham Construction Company. By virtue of his employment, the plaintiff is a beneficiary under the DILLINGHAM CONSTRUCTION HOLDINGS INC. GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE POLICY (The Policy).

In 2002, the plaintiff became involved in an body surfing accident resulting in him suffering a spinal fracture and dislocation at his T3-4 level. Due to these injuries, the plaintiff became a complete paraplegic. Upon becoming a paraplegic, the plaintiff became totally disabled under the terms of the above mentioned Policy. The plaintiff was also determined to be totally disabled from any occupation by the Social Security Administration.

Claim for Long Term Disability Benefits Against Standard Life Insurance Company

In accordance with the terms of the Policy, the plaintiff filed a claim for long term disability benefits with Standard Life. The plaintiff was also determined by Standard Life to be totally disabled and unable to perform all of the essential functions of his own occupation and hence entitled for long term disability benefits under the terms and conditions of the Policy.

A review of the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits was conducted by Standard Life in February 2005. The review concluded that the plaintiff was unable to perform the material duties of any occupation which he has the education, training and experience to perform.

On November 17th 2010, Standard Life informed the plaintiff that it had conducted another review of the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits and decided to cancel the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits retroactive to December 31st 2006. Standard Life also demanded $124,389.45 from the plaintiff on the ground that this represented overpayments of disability benefits. According to Standard Life;

Based on our review, you are no longer disabled, and no longer eligible for LTD benefits.

The plaintiff alleged in the lawsuit that Standard Life’s decision to terminate the plaintiff’s disability benefits was not based on any medical evaluation, reports or opinions. The plaintiff argued that Standard Life had based its determination to deny the plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits on some newspaper articles and internet websites and assuming that the plaintiff was earning money as an officer of his family business, the Nielsen Construction CA.

The plaintiff argued that at all times since 2002, he has been paralyzed from the chest down. The plaintiff stated that his physical condition had gotten worse as the 2002 injuries to his spinal cord also caused a mass on plaintiff’s spine (syrinx) resulting in him feeling constant pain.

“Return to Work Incentive”

Nevertheless, Standard Life argued that even if the plaintiff was disabled, he is subjected to the policy’s “Return To Work Incentive” as he had earned income. The “Return To Work Incentive” calls for the reduction of the plaintiff’s disability benefits in proportion to ½ of the payment that the plaintiff received for the work that he had done.

The plaintiff argued that Standard Life had tried to use the Return to Work Incentive to redefine the term “Disability” and is contradictory in nature to the terms of the policy. Despite the plaintiff’s arguments, Standard Life refused to reverse its position to confirm that the plaintiff is not disabled and is subjected to the “return to work incentive.” Standard Life response instead was to recalculate the overpayment amount to $118,971.93 instead and insist that the plaintiff owed Standard Life this amount in overpayment. At the same time, Standard Life refused to make further payments of long term disability benefits to the plaintiff.

The contradictory nature of Standard Life argument stem from the fact that if Standard Life insisted that the plaintiff is subjected to the “return to work incentive”, this would imply that the plaintiff is disabled. However at the same time, Standard Life had insisted that the plaintiff owed $124,389.45 (later recalculated to $118,971.93) in overpayment of disability benefits. This, on the other hand, would imply that the plaintiff is no longer deemed to be disabled.

Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies And Relief Sought

Having exhausted all administrative remedies in trying to explain to Standard Life why its determination is erroneous, the plaintiff is forced to seek relief through the Court:

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 Standard claimants nationwide?

We represent Standard 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 Standard disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Standard. 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 Standard.

How do you help Standard claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Standard 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 Standard:

  • 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   *****

Diane H. (Maryland)

I am a 62-year-old woman that got injured on the job and was unable to work. I had long term insurance that was paid by my job. In September 2017, I request a buyout from The Hartford insurance company. After receiving no word from The Hartford insurance company, for 10 months, I made the decision, to seek legal action.

My experience with Dell & Schaefer, particularly Attorney Rachel Alters and her staff was brilliant. I was very fortunate to get Attorney Rachel Alters to represent me on my case. From the time of my first conservation with Attorney Rachel Alters, I knew she had my best interest at heart, I felt confident that my case would be an open and shut case.

All my questions are always answered, I never felt confused in the process, and phone calls are always returned the same day if possible or the next. My e-mails were always answered in a timely matter.

Words cannot express how grateful I am for Attorney Rachel Alters, and her staff assisting me in the short amount of time that was given for the success in my case. Attorney Rachel Alters worked so diligently hard in my disability buyout case to bring a settlement as quickly as possible. In addition, Attorney Rachel Alters, is very detailed oriented, and follows through if there are delays.

Thank you for everything that you’ve done to help and support me. I am so grateful to Rachel Alters and her staff. They are awesome!

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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