Court reverses CIGNA disability denial for man with knee disorder
When Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA / CIGNA) terminated Dale W. Gordon’s long term disabilities benefits in June 1, 2006, Gordon sought the help of a disability attorney to get his status of disabled person back. The Court issued its judgment on the matter almost 1-1/2 years after Gordon’s disability attorney first filed legal action against CIGNA.
As is typical of many claims filed under the Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), both parties cross moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to validate their side of the lawsuit to the exclusion of opposing side.
In Gordon’s case the main question before this Court was “How should the court interpret the standards of review that applied in this case?” There were two standards for the Court to consider: 1) Summary Judgment; 2) Federal Court review of ERISA decision.
Summary Judgment in a Long-Term Disability Suit
The Court determined that summary judgment would be appropriate where there was no dispute relating to the facts. If Gordon, the party who brought the suit, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then summary judgment could be issued in his favor. The Court committed itself to considering the evidence and making inferences from the evidence in the record before deciding the matter under dispute, LINA’s termination of Gordon’s long-term disability benefits under the “Any Occupation” definition of his disability plan.
Impact of ERISA on Federal Court Review of Long-Term Disability Suit
When an insurance plan authorizes the plan administrator to decide eligibility for benefits, ERISA mandates the type of review. As per the language of the plan, LINA had the power to decide the validity of a participant’s claim for disability benefits. Even though Gordon’s disability attorney asked the Court to disregard the provision and review his claim de novo, the Court found the attorneys’ arguments for a de novo review had no merit. The Court would review LINA’s decision under the abuse of discretion standard.
Application of the abuse of discretion standard requires the Court to review for reasonableness. Such a review is limited to the evidence in the administrative record. An insurance company’s decision need not be correct. It just needs to be reasonable.
Man’s capacity to work is the main question before the Court.
LINA argued that Gordon was not disabled. The disability insurance company pointed to a TSA report showing that he could do six jobs. Gordon’s disability attorneys replied that Gordon was not able to perform any of the six jobs mentioned in the TSA. She also submitted before the Court the information that the jobs did not satisfy a wage threshold that was implicated in the policy.
Three physical ability assessments (PAAs) had been prepared by one of Gordon’s treating physicians. The first two PAAs submitted appeared to show that Gordon could perform sedentary or light occupations. Yet the third PAA prepared in May 2006 reflected a correction in which the doctor made it clear that Gordon was only able to sit occasionally and could no longer sit continuously as previously stated.
LINA based its decision to terminate Gordon’s disability benefits on the basis of its interpretation of the earlier PAAs, and argued before the Court that the change in the final PAA was unexplainable. The Court found that this wasn’t the first time LINA had discounted a doctor’s opinion, or even gone so far as to mischaracterize information so it looked like the doctor said something contrary to what was actually stated.
In Gordon’s case, the mischaracterization began in August 2006, when the nurse case manager handling his file wrote that Canfield’s PAA outlined “sedentary to light capacity.” When his claim was referred to the medical director for review, the nurse informed him that the medical evidence showed Gordon could perform at a sedentary to light demand level.
Others who reviewed his file never contested the factual nature of this assertion. When he was sent the final denial letter which precipitated his lawsuit against LINA, the LINA claims handler informed him that all of his PAAs supported the fact that he was able to perform well “beyond the requirements of sedentary work.” He was told that there was “no medical information that would support his impairment to perform any occupations at the sedentary level.”
The question before the Court was whether these assertions were true. A review of the final PAA from May 2006 contradicted these conclusions. Even though his doctor had stated that Gordon’s ability for lifting, carrying, pushing, and pulling were sedentary, elsewhere in the form he had noted the continuous pain in Gordon’s left knee that limited standing, walking, bending and kneeling .
The Court caught serious contradictions in LINA statements. On one side, LINA argued that the May 2006 PAA showed Gordon had the capacity for sedentary work. Yet, this same PAA also stated that Gordon could not walk, sit or stand more than 2-1/2 hours per day. So how it was possible that a person, who could not sit, walk or stand for more than 2-1/2 hours per day, could do sedentary work which assumes an ability to alternate between these activities for 8 hours a day?
The Court turned to the Social Security Administration’s definition of sedentary work. This definition states that a person who cannot sit for more than 2-1/2 hours per day is not capable of doing sedentary work.
The Court found that LINA’s interpretation of the PAAs suggested LINA had abused its power in determining that Gordon could do sedentary work.
Importance of Transferable Skills Analysis on Long-term Disability Decision
The transferable skills analysis (TSA), which provided a basis for LINA’s benefits termination decision, suggested six jobs which Gordon could perform. The TSA considered only whether identified jobs were compatible with Gordon’s skill, education, experience. The person preparing the TSA did not consider whether jobs were compatible with Gordon’s physical restriction or limitations.
LINA also abused its power when it relied upon the TSA for another reason. LINA’s outside vocational consultant found that Gordon had no transferable skills that matched his physical limitations. Another one of LINA’s vocational rehabilitation counselors remarked that Gordon had no transferable skills. Both of these consultants were working for LINA, not for Gordon.
Wrong Wage Threshold Used?
Gordon’s disability attorney argued that LINA had used the wrong wage threshold when identifying jobs that qualified for the TSA. LINA had identified jobs that met a 60% wage threshold as compared to his predisability wages. His attorney argued that this should have been 80% instead. LINA’s response was that a wage threshold had never been stipulated in the policy. For this reason, the disability insurance plan had no obligation to use a threshold.
The main point put forward in the Court by Gordon’s disability attorney was that the policy internally contradicted itself. LINA promised to provide disability benefits to those who could not earn more than 80 percent of income through work incentive benefits. But if an employee had earnings from some occupation during the “Any Occupation” period, then how could the employee be disabled under the any occupation definition of disability? There was a contradiction between the work incentive benefits provision and any occupation definition of disability. These contradictions were irreconcilable.
The Court found that LINA’s policy was poorly drafted with internally conflicting terms. As Gordon’s disability attorney argued, LINA’s definition of disability only made sense in the context of an 80% wage threshold. Why else would the disability insurance plan be willing to provide work incentive benefits to employees during the “Any Occupation” phase of the plan? To turn around and deny benefits for an individual who could earn nothing at all under the “Any Occupation” phase was an even greater contradiction.
The Court held that LINA had abused its discretion by failing to apply an eighty percent wage threshold in determining Gordon’s disability. For the above mentioned reason Court agreed with Gordon that LINA erroneously used a sixty percent wage threshold in this case.
None of the jobs identified in the TSA paid eighty percent of Gordon’s indexed pre-disability earnings even if he was physically capable of doing those jobs. This was a second and concrete reason to support the Court’s finding that LINA abused its discretion when it denied Gordon’s long term disabilities benefits.
Court pronounced its judgment in favor of Gordon’s continuing status as a disabled person. In addition to issuing summary judgment in Gordon’s favor, the Court found that an award of pre judgment interest was necessary to provide appropriate relief to Gordon.
It had been a long battle between Gordon’s disability attorney and LINA’s counsel, but Gordon was successful in securing his rightful long term disability benefits. If you find yourself in a similar situation, an experienced ERISA disability attorney is invaluable. Hiring a long-term disability insurance attorney to represent him/her in a lawsuit against one of the disability insurance plans is vital for securing your rights.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Submit a Strong Cigna Appeal Package
We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Cigna appeal.
Sue Cigna
We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Cigna.
Get Your Cigna Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Cigna Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Cigna Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Uses every dirty trick in the book
Unum is evil
Every month I get paid on a different date
They will do anything to not approve your claim
Reply
Don't trust them, they like to play games
Lyme Disease Disability Claim Denial
Disappointed with NY Life Disability Excuses
New York Life is a joke!
Q: I filed an appeal and lost. Is it worth pursuing?
Q: Do I have a case for STD? I was denied twice because a) I hadn't been a fulltime employee for 6 months and b) I had ben on FMLA since Febury.
Q: How can I appeal Cigna's decision if there are no written communications explanation the reasons for claim termination?
Q: Is there a process for appeals not being responded to in the time given? Also, how do I access my records?
Q: Is it worth is to go to court over $2500?
Q: How long will it take Cigna to get back to me? Will my military retiree pay be held against my policy 60%? Will Cigna exploit the disparity in the medical community over my illness?
Q: Do I have any options to void an agreement I signed? Can Signa offset my SSDI benefits?
Q: Can I sue Cigna even if they do end up paying me?
Is Cigna Seeking To Offset Disability Benefit by Social Security Survivor Benefit?
Is Cigna's Denial of Your Appeal Really a Denial?
What Should a Claimant Expect When Suing Cigna or any Other Disability Company for Long Term Disability Benefits?
Are Cigna Short Term Disability Denials on the Rise?
Cigna's latest strategies for handling and denying disability benefit claims
Is a Claimant's Complaints of Pain Enough to Qualify for Short or Long Term Disability Insurance Benefits?
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?
Is My "No-Fault" Auto Insurance Settlement an Offset Under My Long Term Disability Insurance Policy?
Dell Disability Lawyers successfully appeal denial of benefits to claimant with CRPS/RSD
LINA overturned its previous LTD denial for Medical Technologist
Dell Disability Lawyers Successfully Appeals Denial of Benefits to Former Clinical Therapist
Attorney Cesar Gavidia Successfully Reinstates CIGNA Benefits to a Senior Systems Engineer Suffering from Migraines
Cigna Overturns Denial of Long Term Disability Benefits
CIGNA overturned previous denial of long term disability benefits for Massachusetts Senior Advisor
CIGNA overturned previous denial of long term disability benefits for New Jersey Account Manager
Cigna Overturns Denial of Long Term Disability Benefits On Appeal
Reviews from Our Clients







5 Ways We Help Get Your Benefits Paid
Our goal is to get your application for disability insurance benefits approved. Applying for disability insurance 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 disability insurance lawyers will guide you through the entire application process and give you the best chance to get your disability claim approved the first time.
If your disability insurance benefits have been wrongfully denied, then our disability insurance 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 long-term disability attorneys for a free immediate review of your disability denial.
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 insurance attorneys 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.
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 disability insurance 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.
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 disability insurance 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
We are disability insurance attorneys 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.
Our attorneys have been able to either get our clients paid monthly disability benefits or obtain a one-time lump-sum settlement in more than 98% of our cases. Our disability insurance 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 offer disability insurance attorney representation nationwide and we welcome you to contact any of our LTD lawyers 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 900 videos and regularly provide tips to help protect your disability benefits.
Our disability insurance attorneys 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.
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 insurance 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.
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.
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, or video conferencing sessions. 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.
When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability insurance 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.