California Judge grants disability claimant’s request to investigate Hartford Life And Accident Insurance Company’s relationship with hired doctors

Are The Medical Opinions From Doctors Hired By Hartford Insurance Company “Bought And Paid For”?

In Mary Carten vs. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company, Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees Of FMR Corporation, the plaintiff brought the civil lawsuit in a California Federal Court under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to challenge a denial of disability benefits made by the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (Harford). The plaintiff requested an opportunity to conduct discovery into Hartford’s claims handling practices in order to determine if Hartford’s wrongful denial her long term disability benefits was done with a conflict of interest.

It is ironic that Harford denies disability benefits and then tries to do whatever they can to hide the existence of their financial relationship with the doctors they hire. Hartford is suppose to be the fiduciary of Ms. Carten. Hartford’s actions clearly suggest that they are not acting in the best interest of Ms. Carten.

The Facts of the Disability Case Against Hartford

The plaintiff Mary Carten was formerly employed at FMR Corporation as a Vice President/Account Executive. While employed with FMR Corporation, the plaintiff participated in FMR’s Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees, which was insured and administered by Hartford.

In March 2005, the plaintiff stopped working and applied for short term disability benefits which was approved and lasted for six months. Upon the expiry of her short term disability benefits in September 2005, the plaintiff made an application for long term disability benefits under the above mentioned plan. She received payment for long term disability benefits for approximately 4 years, which were then denied in September 2009.

Termination Of Disability Benefits by Hartford After Paying for 4 Years

In September 2009, the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits were terminated by Hartford. It was stated that the termination was based on a review of the plaintiff’s claim file which indicated that she did not meet the newly triggered definition of disabled. The plaintiff was only entitled to further disability benefits only if she was unable to perform “one or more of the Essential Duties of Any Occupation”

In March 2010, the plaintiff appealed Hartford’s termination decision which Hartford affirmed in June 2010. Hartford’s decision to affirm the termination was based on a second review of the plaintiff’s claim file. Both of the reviews were conducted by a different reviewing physician employed by different consulting companies. Hartford never examined the Plaintiff and relied exclusively on review of medical records.

In August, 2010 the plaintiff filed the legal action seeking a further review of Hartford’s termination decisions. The plaintiff alleged then that Hartford had wrongfully denied the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits under the ERISA plan. The plaintiff also alleged that Hartford had breached its fiduciary duties to plan participants and beneficiaries with respect to its management of the plan.

The Court’s Analysis of the facts of the Case

The arguments presented in the action clustered on two main questions:

  1. The sufficiency of plaintiff’s proof of her disability.
  2. The unfairness of Hartford’s claims administration.

To review the matter before it, the Court had to consider several issues:

“We have full discretion and authority determine eligibility for benefits and to construe and interpret all terms and provisions of the Group Insurance Policy.”

The Abuse Of Discretion

To determine if there was an abuse of discretion on Hartford’s part, the court stated that it had to also consider the fact that Hartford acted both as the claims administrator and as the payer as this created a structural conflict of interest, which must be factored into the abuse of discretion analysis.

Hartford Insurance Company’s Structural Conflict Of Interest

Because Hartford has a structural conflict of interest, the plaintiff argued that Hartford’s decisions should be reviewed with heightened skepticism and provided a variety of evidence outside the administrative record to support her arguments that Hartford’s structural conflict of interest was exacerbated by bias.

The plaintiff argued that the file reviewing physicians whose reports were the basis for Hartford’s decisions to terminate plaintiff’s benefits and affirm the termination-were biased by improper financial incentives and pressures. Although, Hartford objected to this evidence being presented, the Court, without ruling on the ultimate admissibility of any materials at trial, found that the plaintiff had produced evidence showing that discovery could well reveal that the file reviewer reports on which Hartford based its actions were “bought and paid for.”

The showing of improper financial influence indicated that Hartford’s structural conflict of interest deserved a closer scrutiny in reviewing the termination of the plaintiff’s long term disability benefits. As such the Court ruled that some discovery is warranted as to allow the plaintiff to try to demonstrate with admissible evidence how conflicts of interest may have infected Hartford’s denial of her claim and subsequent affirmation of the denial.

This ruling is a temporary victory for the claimant, as conflict of interest is one of many factors factor that the court will consider when reviewing a disability denial. It will be interesting to see te results obtained from the discovery into Hartford’s relationship with the physicians they often hire to review disability insurance claims.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you help Hartford claimants nationwide?

We represent Hartford 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 Hartford disability insurance policy?

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

How do you help Hartford claimants?

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

  • 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   *****

Dawn P.

I had to quit working after 8 years of dealing with chronic pain from 2 bulging and torn discs from an injury and failey back surgery. I was approved for Long term disability through my employer benefits, with Unum. They covered me with payments for one year, and suddenly sent a letter that their doctors disagreed with my surgeon and pain management doctors, and they felt I could go back to work full time. I hired a local attorney, trying to save some money, but I don’t think he had much experience dealing with big LTD companies such as Unum. He filed terrible appeals on my behalf with little to no effort on his part of building a good case for me. After a year of dealing with his condescending attitude and loosing my final appeal, I decided to call up Dell & Schaefer. I had contacted them a year prior when searching for an attorney. Cesar was willing to take my case and felt I had a good one. But I didn’t want to pay the percentage he was asking for if we won back then. The old saying, “you get what you pay for”, proved to be true in this case and I regretted not hiring him from the beginning!

Once I did hire him, and thank goodness he was still willing to take my case even though he was dealing with defending poor appeals by my previous lawyer, things got moving along for me. Because of his years of experience dealing with Unum, and his record of wins against them, within 6 months we had a settlement I could live with! The stress I suffered before Cesar and weight on my shoulders was gone! Cesar is a kind, caring, attorney who will fight for your rights! His assistant Michal always talked to me when I called in with questions or to check up on my case and never made me feel bad for calling. It was nothing like the previous relationship I had with my other attorney and his staff, who avoided me. Cesar explains the process well and keeps you updated on your options throughout the process. He was worth every penny!

I am grateful for their representation and would recommend anyone with an ERISA case to call him!

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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