Can Medical Records Created After the Eligibility Period Support a Claim for Disability Benefits?

In James s. Louis v. The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (Hartford), Plaintiff was a Senior Principal Product Strategist with Oracle America Inc. (Oracle) when he was fired from his job effective October 13, 2017. Between May 2017 and the date of termination, Plaintiff worked only intermittently.

Oracle provided its employees with a long term disability (LTD) benefit plan under which Plaintiff could receive benefits if he was disabled on the date of his termination and remained continuously and totally disabled for the next 90 days. Plaintiff applied for LTD benefits claiming he was unable to work due to gastrointestinal and dermatology problems.

Both Plaintiff and Hartford agreed the elimination period ran from October 13, 2017, the date Plaintiff was fired from his job, to January 10, 2018.

Disability under the policy was defined as the inability to “perform with reasonable continuity the Essential Duties necessary to pursue your occupation in the usual or customary way.” Plaintiff was required to prove he was unable to perform his regular occupation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Hartford denied Plaintiff’s claim for LTD benefits and then denied his administrative appeal. Having exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this ERISA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

At the beginning of the hearing, Plaintiff himself informed the Court he was withdrawing his claim based on dermatology problems and wanted to proceed only with consideration of his gastroenterology diagnoses. The Court noted that during the hearing, Plaintiff’s attorney argued for disability based on both the dermatology and gastroenterology problems, so the Court held in favor of Hartford, finding that after de novo review, Plaintiff had not carried his burden to prove he was entitled to LTD benefits for either a gastroenterology or dermatology disability.

Pre-Termination Medical Records

In support of his claim, Plaintiff submitted records of three visits with gastroenterologists during the time he worked intermittently from May 24, 2017, the first day he missed work, and October 13, 2017, his termination date.

He had three visits with two gastroenterologists: June 15, 2017, June 22, 2017, and September 14, 2017, but no visits with any dermatologist. He was diagnosed with several gastroenterology problems including ulcerative colitis, primarysclerosing cholangitis (PSC), a disease of the bile ducts.

One gastroenterologist noted Plaintiff had prior diagnoses of hidradenitis suppurative (HS) and pruritus and referred him to a dermatologist. Neither of the gastroenterologists made any mention of Plaintiff being unable to work.

Plaintiff submitted no other medical records indicating treatment occurring between September 14, 2017 and his termination date of October 13, 2017.

Medical Records from Termination Date Through the 90-Day Elimination Period

Plaintiff made no visit to any physician for the first 55-days of the elimination period. For the last 35 days of the elimination period, December 7, 2017, to January 10, 2018, he made two visits to his treating physicians. One to his dermatologist who noted Plaintiff was “clear today.” She recommended follow-up in six months.

Plaintiff visited his treating gastroenterologist complaining of diarrhea. Plaintiff told the doctor he “could not work due to loose stools.” The doctor examined him and reported Plaintiff was “in no acute distress.”

All other medical records submitted during Plaintiff’s appeal were from treatments, diagnoses, and attending physician statements (APS) that were after the elimination period. No records supported disability prior to the termination date and prior to the end of the elimination period.

Independent Medical Review

Hartford obtained a peer review report from a Board Certified Internal Medicine physician. He noted that no physician had placed any restrictions or limitations on Plaintiff from a gastroenterology perspective. The reviewing doctor himself suggested that the “claimant should have restroom access at all times.” Hartford denied the claim, but told Plaintiff it would re-review his case if he submitted medical records relevant to his dermatological issues.

Plaintiff submitted more medical records, “none of which reflected examination during the Elimination Period.” Hartford reviewed the medical records and determined that, “although later flare-ups in Plaintiff’s condition may have caused some functional impairment after the 90-day Elimination Period, the records did not support any functional impairment throughout the 90-day Elimination Period.”

District Court’s Decision Upholding Hartford’s Denial

With the agreement of both Plaintiff and Defendant, the Court conducted de novo review. Under this standard, the Court reviewed the entire administrative record, including the medical records, and made its own determination that Plaintiff had not proved beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to benefits under the policy.

The Court found the APS reports and supporting letters from Plaintiff’s treating physicians “were all created well after the Elimination Period and fail to provide or refer to any objective evidence of disabling conditions throughout the Elimination Period (which would be expected given the objective nature of his conditions.) The APS reports and supporting letters are, therefore, unpersuasive….. Accordingly, The Hartford’s decision to deny LTD benefits to Plaintiff is upheld as a matter of law…”.

This case was not handled by our office, but we believe it can be instructive for those who apply for disability benefits after they have been fired from their employment. If you have any questions about this case, or any question about your own disability claim, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.

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, 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   *****

Michael M.

Great attorneys, very professional and fully committed with helping you on your behalf. They worked hard in a very complex disability law system. You can not fight without a good attorney. These corporations are great in protecting themselves with lawyers and insurance after they cause harm to you. So be smart and fight back with a good attorney from Dell & Schaefer. Do not let someone hurt you and get away with it without trying to fight for what you deserve. I just want to say thank you Dell & Schaefer for all you did for me.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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