CIGNA / LINA wrongfully relies upon surveillance video to deny long term disability insurance benefits

CIGNA Insurance Company, the parent company of Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) has relied on video surveillance to deny thousands of claims for disability insurance benefits. This case is another classic example of CIGNA wrongfully relying upon video surveillance to justify its disregard of the claimant’s medical evidence. A Federal Court in California found that CIGNA / LINA abused its discretion when it denied Todd Nash’s claim. Let’s take a closer look at the Court’s reasoning.

Todd Nash worked as the Vice President of Business Development at Morpho Technologies. His position was mainly a sedentary occupation requiring primarily sitting all day, including transcontinental airplane flights as long as 12 hours for business meetings. As an employee of Morpho, Nash was covered by a Long Term Disability Plan that was administered by the Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) and governed by ERISA.

Nash’s policy contained the common language of most group disability insurance policies sold by CIGNA. His policy stated a person is first considered disabled if due to injury or sickness they are unable to perform all the material duties of his “regular occupation.” After the disability has lasted 30 months, the person is then considered disabled if they are unable to perform all the material duties of “any occupation” for which they are qualified based on education, training or experience.

In 2003, Nash complained of a “pain deep inside the left hip,” which was constantly present. He mentioned that it was particularly painful during long periods of sitting. Nash met with orthopedic surgeon Dr. Behrooz Tohidi who, after taking x-rays, concluded that Nash suffered from “severe degenerative arthritis with complete loss of the articular space and bone-on-bone contact.” Dr. Tohidi injected Xylocaine and Depo-Medrol into Nash’s hip, prescribed him Vicodin (Nash was allergic to aspirin), and informed him that hip replacement was in his future, but advised to delay it as long as possible because a hip replacement only last 20 years and each additional replacement is more difficult and risky (Nash was only 43 years old at the time).

Dr. Tohidi completed and submitted LINA’s Physical Abilities Assessment Form where he informed CIGNA that Nash’s upright sitting was limited to less than 2.5 hours per 8-hour work day.

On March 16, 2004, CIGNA advised Nash that he had been approved for long-term disability benefits.

Nash met his new primary care physician, Dr. Stacey Lin, on November 8, 2004. She noted his physical impairments. On March 31, 2005, Dr. Tohidi sent LINA Supplementary Disability claim form indicating Nash’s severe physical impairments due to the degenerative arthritis of the hip and cognitive impairment due to the prescribed narcotic pain medication.

From October 25, 2005 through October 29, 2005, LINA conducted video surveillance on Nash. On the first four days the claimant performed yard work around his residence and assisted laborers who were installing a retaining wall. On the fifth day Nash was observed at the San Diego Zoo.

On December 13, 2005, CIGNA discontinued Nash’s benefits beyond November 30, 2005. The main reason behind its denial was the surveillance footage that LINA felt was completely contradictory to Nash’s and Dr. Tohidi’s reports.

On December 19, 2005, Nash met with Dr. Lin who again noted Nash’s pain and his severe osteoarthritis. Nash then met with Dr. Patrick Padilla on January 4, 2006 who recommended surface replacing hip arthroplasty. Then on February 9, 2006, Nash met with orthopedic specialist Dr. James Helgager who diagnosed Nash with advanced osteoarthritis of the left hip and recommended a hip replacement in the future.

On February 13, 2006, Nash met with Dr. Lin again who reported that there had been no significant change since January 2005. Dr. Lin then completed a Physical Abilities Assessment form on March 16, 2006 and mentioned that Nash’s activities be limited to less than 2.5 hours a day of sitting, standing, walking, etc. On March 22, 2006, Dr. Helgager also completed a Physical Abilities Assessment form which was nearly identical to Dr. Lin’s.

Nash then met with a physical therapist who conducted a Functional Capacity Examination who concluded that Nash did not appear capable of resuming his usual and customary role in the workforce.

Finally, on April 6, 2006, Dr. Helgager reported that he would recommend hip surgery, but not for at least ten years do to Nash’s young age.

On May 15, 2006, Nash submitted his ERISA appeal. His appeal contained the above described medical records and a commentary on the surveillance footage. However, on July 10, 2006, LINA again denied Nash’s claim. In the denial letter, LINA mentioned that the information he provided in his appeal was several weeks to several months after his disability benefits ended and did not provide evidence of continuous disability as of November 30, 2005, the date his benefits ended.

Dr. Tohidi examined Nash again on October 23, 2006 where he came to the same conclusion as he had over the previous years: that Nash was suffering form severe osteoarthritis, was functionally disabled and was a future candidate for hip replacement surgery. Further, Dr. Tohidi pointed out that LINA’s reasoning that because Nash was not seen during a specific period of time between March and November 30, 2005, that he somehow what not disabled or limited and restricted at that time was medically preposterous. Dr. Tohidi then gave his opinion of the surveillance video. Dr. Tohidi pointed out that the video did not show the patient sitting but for a few seconds. Also, Nash is seen leaning against a tree or wall when he is shown standing for a few minutes. Dr. Tohidi found LINA’s description of the video to be inaccurate and misleading at best.

On January 4, 2007, Plaintiff again appealed, submitting the above information. LINA at first refused to consider the appeal because it did not provide additional material as to Nash’s abilities on November 30, 2005. After Nash’s California disability insurance attorney involved the California Department of Insurance, LINA reviewed the appeal. LINA had Dr. Harvey Popovich, a board certified Family Practice and Occupational Medicine doctor who was associated with the “Physicians’ Review Network,” prepare a report following a review of Nash’s medical records and the video surveillance. Dr. Popovich concluded that the restrictions and limitations reported by the other physicians are not supported by any objective evidence for the period of November 30, 2005 through the present. The last appeal was denied on July 18, 2007.

The ERISA Lawsuit

Following this final denial of his appeal for long-term disability benefits, Nash filed an ERISA lawsuit in the Federal District Court of California. At issue in the lawsuit is whether LINA abused its discretion when it determined that Nash was not disabled under the “regular occupation” definition of disability.

Standard of Review

Since the disability insurance policy and plan documents granted discretionary authority to LINA, the Court reviewed LINA’ decision under the abuse of discretion standard.

The Court’s Analysis

Let’s take a look at seven of the California Federal Court’s reasons for reversing CIGNA’s denial of long-term disability benefits.

A. Surveillance Video:

With regard to the surveillance video conducted by LINA, the Court found that LINA overstated and over-relied upon the 240 minutes of surveillance footage of Nash taken over a five-day period. The Court noted that the video does not show Nash sitting other than in a car for less than 45 minutes and briefly at the zoo. This was not inconsistent with Nash’s self reporting that he could sit in a car for up to 45 minutes. The Court felt that just because Nash could perform sedentary activities in bursts spread out over 5 days did not indicate he was capable of sustaining continuous activity in a full time occupation. The Court found that LINA’s treatment of the video surveillance evidence was a factor that it would consider in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

B. CIGNA completes a paper review and does not conduct an IME:

The Court noted that while LINA did not exercise its contractual right to hire a physician to examine Nash, it instead conducted a paper review of Nash’s medical records. The Court found that none of LINA’s medical reviewers addressed the Social Security Administration’s determination that Nash was disabled. The Court held that this would be a factor that it would consider in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

Further, the court found no evidence that any of LINA’s medical reviewers were an orthopedic specialist or had experience with patients who had osteoarthritis of the hip. The Court also held that this would be a factor that it would consider in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

Finally, the Court noted that LINA’s peer reviewer, Dr. Popovich, offered no further explanation as to why his opinion contradicted the opinions of each of the orthopedic specialists who examined Nash and viewed Nash’s X-rays. The Court also found that this would be a factor that it would consider in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

C. Evidence of Continuous Disability as of November 20, 2005:

The Court then remembered that on December 13, 2005 LINA told Nash that it had denied his claim for benefits beyond November 30, 2005. The Court noted that prior to December 13, LINA had not informed Nash that the date of November 30 held any special significance as the date LINA would require Nash to prove disability. Further, the Court noted that LINA ignored Nash’s first appeal b/c the medical evidence was “several weeks to several months after your disability benefits ended and does not provide evidence of continuous disability as of November 30, 2005.” The Court then noted that during the 2nd appeal, Dr. Tohidi pointed out that LINA’s basis for the first appeal denial was “medically preposterous” b/c the severity of the hip illness has not and could not have improved in the continuous period from Sept 2003 to Jan 2006 and beyond. Additionally, the resulting limitation and restrictions associated have not been and could not have been lifted during that time or on the date of 11/30/05. LINA only responded to this by saying Nash’s newly submitted “information”¦did not add any further explanation of Nash’s functionality as of 11/30/05.” The Court held that the failure to address Dr. Tohidi’s direct rejection of LINA’s rationale is a factor the Court considers in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

D. Social Security Disability Determination:

While the Plan required Nash to apply for Social Security disability benefits which the Plan could and did deduct from his payments when granted, neither LINA nor its medical reviewers addressed the Social Security Administration’s determination that Nash was disabled. This also was a factor the Court considered in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

E. Pain Medication:

Neither LINA nor its medical reviewers articulated a rationale for rejecting Nash’s evidence that (1) narcotic pain medication was necessary for Nash’s pain symptoms, (2) the side effects of the medication included sedation and impaired cognitive abilities, and (3) Nash was not able to perform duties of his regular occupation with impaired cognitive abilities. This was also a factor the Court considered in determining whether LINA abused its discretion.

F. Failure to Credit Plaintiff’s Reliable Evidence:

The Court stated that plan administrators may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant’s reliable evidence, including the opinions of a treating physician. The court said that’s exactly what LINA did here when it disregarded with minimal or no explanation the reports submitted by Nash on administrative appeal of three examining orthopedic specialists, Nash’s primary care physician and an examining physical therapist. The Court viewed LINA’s decision with some skepticism due to LINA’s conflict of interest.

G. Quality and Quantity of Medical Evidence

In viewing the medical evidence in the administrative record, the Court found that the quality and quantity of the medical evidence supported Nash’s claim that, during the “regular occupation” period, he was unable to perform the material duties of his regular occupation due to severe osteoarthritis of the left hip.

Summary

The Court concluded that CIGNA / LINA abused its discretion in denying Nash’s claim for disability insurance benefits. The Court stated that even if they ignored LINA’s conflict of interest, the Court would nonetheless have concluded that LINA abused its discretion in denying P’s claim for benefits.

Remedy

Because LINA’s decision to terminate Nash’s “regular occupation” benefits was an abuse of discretion, the Court ordered retroactive reinstatement of Nash’s “regular occupation” benefits from the time they were terminated to the time that the “regular occupation” benefits would have expired.”

Because LINA had not decided Nash’s case under the “any occupation” standard, and the administrative record had not been adequately developed regarding the “any occupation” standard, the Court remanded the case back to CIGNA and ordered CIGNA to evaluate the claim for benefits pursuant to the “any occupation” definition of disability.


Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong Cigna Appeal Package

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

Learn more

Sue Cigna

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

Learn more

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

Learn more

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

Learn more

Negotiate a Cigna Lump-Sum Settlement

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

Learn more

Cigna Reviews
(642)

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 642 Reviews
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 >
Reliance Standard

Staff Lie

Reviewed by Tanya on February 12th 2024   Verified Policyholder | August 2021 date of disability
I had my disability cut off the day I was scheduled to find out whether I should have surgery. The claims examiner was aware that I had an appointment on that date and sai... read more >
Reply
Sent on February 12th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell

I am sorry to hear about your experience. It’s crazy that Reliance Standard would deny your disability benefits when you are suffering so badly that you need surgery.... read more >

Hartford

Former Hartford employee has had life insurance and accidental death policy's revoked for one late premium payment

Reviewed by Becky H. THOMAS on February 12th 2024   Verified Policyholder | February 2024 date of disability
Dislike how they are constantly interrupting the lives of their disabled EE's whom are entitled to benefit which they paid into out of there pay check every pay period onl... read more >
Reply
Sent on February 12th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Thank you for your review of Hartford and we appreciate you sharing.  It’s sad they don’t take care of their own employees.

Lincoln Financial

Never received benefits my entire leave - or help with them

Reviewed by Anna on December 19th 2023   Verified Policyholder | November 2023 date of disability
I used my short term disability insurance for maternity leave and started the process beforehand knowing when I would be out (scheduled induction.) It took a little over a... read more >
Sun Life

Unscrupulous Tactics

Reviewed by Misseekayy on December 19th 2023   Verified Policyholder | May 2023 date of disability
Sunlife uses unscrupulous tactics in order to prevent payment of claims. They wait until it is close to the 30 day mark and then they ask for another form of information o... read more >
Sedgwick

Lame

Reviewed by Dennis T. on December 11th 2023   Verified Policyholder | March 2022 date of disability
My experience with Sedgwick and personell is as follows: Unhelpful, unprofessional and an overall unpleasant experience.
Unum

Low payments

Reviewed by Dorothy on November 30th 2023   Verified Policyholder | November 2023 date of disability
I was injured at work. I did house keeping in a hospital. I tore just about everything imaginable in my knee. I was let go from my job, because I was no longer able to do ... read more >
Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(58)
Showing 8 of 58 Answered Questions

Q: Do I have to be an active employee to apply for LTD?

Answered on October 27th 2022 by Attorney Steven Dell
A: Lori: Generally speaking, if out on claim and a new/different disability arises you can add that to your exist... Read More >

Q: Is my plan governed by ERISA?

Answered on October 9th 2020 by Attorney Alex Palamara
A: LeRoy, we will have to review the policy in order to give an opinion as to whether it would be governed by ERI... Read More >

Q: Can I add a physical disability claim to my mental health one without seeing a doctor (hard to get an appointment with COVID)?

Answered on April 14th 2020 by Attorney Cesar Gavidia
A: Heather, the only way to effectively include your physical disability claim is to see a physician qualified to... Read More >

Q: Do you handle CIGNA cases in Florida?

Answered on February 12th 2020 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Vito, yes. We absolutely do handle Cigna cases in Florida. Please email me at Rachel@diattorney.com and send... Read More >

Q: Do you handle closed cases only, or open ones as well?

Answered on May 10th 2019 by Attorney Stephen Jessup
A: Renee, we handle all types of open claims with Cigna – applications, claims handling, appeals, lawsuits, buy... Read More >

Q: I filed an appeal and lost. Is it worth pursuing?

Answered on September 29th 2017 by Attorney Stephen Jessup
A: Kim, in my opinion, yes. If you are still within your timeframe to file a lawsuit you have little to lose in t... Read More >

Q: Is 6 month reporting normal?

Answered on March 8th 2017 by Attorney Stephen Jessup
A: Joe, six month reporting is very normal, and often Cigna requires monthly or every three months so the six mon... Read More >

Q: How long is the ERISA disability policy statue of limitatation?

Answered on August 30th 2016 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Sebastian, did you ever appeal the denial of benefits. The law can be very black and white that failure to app... Read More >
Helpful Videos
(889)
Showing 12 of 889 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(331)
Showing 8 of 331 Benefit Tips

Is Cigna Seeking To Offset Disability Benefit by Social Security Survivor Benefit?

I recently spoke with a gentleman who called into our office who has been receiving long term disability benefits from Cigna for several years... Read More >

Is Cigna's Denial of Your Appeal Really a Denial?

Following the submission of your appeal has Cigna sent you a letter stating that after review of the information provided on appeal their deci... Read More >

What Should a Claimant Expect When Suing Cigna or any Other Disability Company for Long Term Disability Benefits?

ERISA disability lawsuits are complicated due to the pro-insurance company laws. Our disabili... Read More >

Are Cigna Short Term Disability Denials on the Rise?

When it comes to claims for short term disability benefits under ERISA governed group policies, more often than not the short term disability ... Read More >

Cigna's latest strategies for handling and denying disability benefit claims

Watch Gregory Dell and Stephen Jessup discuss Cigna's latest strategy for handling disability... Read More >

Is a Claimant's Complaints of Pain Enough to Qualify for Short or Long Term Disability Insurance Benefits?

The answer to this question applies to the vast majority of long term disability insurance claims that we handle on a daily basis. Pain is sub... Read More >

Is My Insurance Company Allowed to Take An Offset of My Monthly LTD Benefit for Social Security Benefits My Kids Receive As A Result of My Disability?

It is common practice for insurance companies to find ways to limit the amount of money they have to pay to claimants. If you are receiving lo... Read More >

Is My "No-Fault" Auto Insurance Settlement an Offset Under My Long Term Disability Insurance Policy?

If your policy is an employer provided group disability policy governed by ERISA, then any proceeds you receive from a settlement based on "No... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(375)
Showing 8 of 375 Dell Disability Cases

Cigna Sued For Failing To Make A Timely Decision on Appeal

If your disability insurance claim has ever been denied you will have received a formal denial letter from your insurance carrier in which you... Read More >

CIGNA Overturns a Waiver of Premium for Group Life Insurance Policy

In early 2019, the widow of a decease man contacted our firm as she was troubled by the actions of CIGNA, also known as Life Insurance Company... Read More >

Cigna Admits Error In Denying Disability Benefits

Our client, a former school teacher, suffering from multiple severe medical conditions including autonomic nervous system damage, small fiber ... Read More >

CIGNA Overturned Their Denial of LTD Benefits for Nevada Healthcare Coordinator

Our client, Ms. G, formerly worked as a Healthcare Coordinator for a large regional healthcare provider. For many years Ms. G suffered from ch... Read More >

CIGNA Denies Technology Manager under the Own Occupation Provision & Dell Disability Lawyers Wins Appeal

Our client, Mr. N, formerly worked as a Technology Manager / Vice President for a large bank. For many years Mr. N suffered from chronic debil... Read More >

CIGNA overturned previous denial of waiver of life insurance premiums

Our client was the husband and beneficiary of Ms. S, who formerly worked as a registered nurse for a regional Healthcare System. In January 20... Read More >

Dell Disability Lawyers successfully appeal denial of benefits to claimant with CRPS/RSD

Ms. S contacted our firm after receiving a letter from her disability carrier, Cigna, denying her claim for short term disability benefits und... Read More >

LINA overturned its previous LTD denial for Medical Technologist

Our client, Ms. H, formerly worked as a Medical Technologist for a National Clinical Laboratory. In July 2017 a number of medical issues, incl... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(765)
Showing 8 of 765 Lawsuit Stories

Cigna Denial of LTD Benefits for Schlumberger Shop Manager Upheld

In Jerry Courville v. Life Insurance Co of North America (LINA), Plaintiff was employed as a shop manager for Schlum... Read More >

Missouri Court Rules Cigna Wrongfully Terminated Disability Benefits

In the case of Lapidus vs. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. a Missouri federal court ruled against Cigna finding that Cigna wrongfully terminated long ... Read More >

Missouri Court Orders Cigna to Pay LTD Benefits to Medical Sales Executive

The Plaintiff in this case was vice-president of Medical Benefits at BJC Healthcare when a severe back condition required her to have a spinal... Read More >

Cigna's Termination of Disability Benefits was Arbitrary and Capricious

The case of Lani Kyle Moar v. Cigna Corporation, et al., demonstrates the lengths insurance companies will go to avoid paying long term disabi... Read More >

Court Criticizes Lina For Failing to Perform Independent Examination

Disability Insurance companies are criticized often for failing to perform independent medical evaluations and instead relying exclusively on ... Read More >

Lockheed Martin Systems Integration Analyst Wins Long-term Disability Lawsuit against CIGNA

Cal Van Steen had been employed as a Systems Integration Business Analyst at Lockheed Martin Corporation and participated in the company’s g... Read More >

Colorado District Court overturns denial of benefits by Life Insurance Company of North America

In Johnson v. Life Insurance Company of America, a Colorado District Court ruled in favor of the claimant finding LINA’s decision unsupporte... Read More >

Texas Judge Disagrees with Cigna and Applies Claimant Friendly Disability Standard of Review

In Brasseur v. Life Insurance Company of America (LINA), Plaintiff Wilfred Brasseur, a computer engineer, worked in the Houston office of Chic... 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 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 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 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 lawyers 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 lawyers 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 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 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 lawyers 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 lawyers have been able to either get our clients paid monthly disability benefits or obtain a one-time lump-sum settlement. Our 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 welcome you to contact any of our attorneys 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 700 videos and regularly provide tips to help protect your disability benefits.

Who do you help?

Our lawyers 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 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, GoToMeeting 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 800-698-9159 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.