Life Insurance Company of North America (CIGNA) ordered to supply information to disability insurance attorneys

Attorneys Seek Information In Order to Prove Conflict of Interest Impacted Claim Denial

Another case appeared recently before the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division. It sheds light on motions to compel. We will look at the background behind the motion before looking at how the Court evaluated the need for discovery into a disability insurance company’s claims decision process. This case is another example of how a disability insurance company will fight with great effort to hide their potentially unreasonable claims handling activities.

BP Corporation of North America employed Clifford Hall for 27 years as a process operator. On December 1, 2007 he was involved in the motor vehicle accident that caused serious neck and back injuries and a traumatic brain injury as well. He worked his last day at BP the next day.

He was no longer able to fulfill the duties of his medium level job. His responsibilities had included carrying various tools and equipment, using a computer, connecting and disconnecting tank cars, loading tank cars and other physical activities at the oil refinery. He had participated in the BP Welfare Plan Trust-III (BP Plan) as an employee benefit. Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) provided the long-term disability insurance coverage to employees who participated in this plan.

Hall applied for disability benefits through LINA, providing objective medical proof that he was unable to work due to the medical conditions caused by his accident. He was approved for short-term disability, and benefits were paid for several weeks. Then LINA denied Hall’s claim for long-term disability benefits.

Disability insurance company provides only some of the information requested.

After seeking legal representation, Hall filed a disability lawsuit on June 22, 2009. In an effort to represent Hall effectively, his disability attorneys served Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents to Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) also known as CIGNA on August 19, 2009. In their response of September 25, the disability insurance company provided Hall with some answers to the interrogatories and partial responses to the Request for Production. LINA objected to some of the information being requested.

Here were LINA’s arguments:

  1. The information the disability insurance attorney’s wanted was not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
  2. The information they were asking for was private.
  3. The information the disability attorneys sought was confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information.
  4. The information the disability attorneys wanted went beyond the information that was submitted to LINA during the claims process.

The disability attorneys conferred with LINA’s attorneys and agreed to revise their discovery requests. LINA agreed that if this was done, they would respond to the remaining requests by October 20. Nothing was heard from the insurance company by that date. Finally on December 15, 2009, Hall’s disability insurance attorneys emailed LINA asking when a response could be expected. On December 18, LINA informed Hall’s attorneys that they were not going to provide the supplemental responses after all.

Meanwhile, Hall’s disability insurance attorneys were aware that LINA had asked Intracorp to assign a specialist in occupational medicine to review Hall’s medical records. Intracorp had assigned Dr. Ephraim Brenman. As both companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of CIGNA, the attorneys had reason to suspect a conflict of interest. They served Intracorp with a subpoena duces tecum, a written command that required Intracorp to produce documentary or other tangible evidence in their possession or control that was relevant to Hall’s lawsuit.

Because LINA refused to provide the additional information requested, Hall’s disability attorneys filed a Motion to Compel with the court on December 22, 2009. The day before LINA had filed a Motion to Quash the subpoena directed at Intracorp or sought, as an alternative, protective orders. LINA also filed a motion for extension of time on January 22, 2010. When the Court heard the arguments on February 25, the motions were fully briefed and ripe for ruling.

Disability insurance attorneys argue for right to discovery.

Hall’s disability insurance attorneys argued that as an ERISA benefits suit they had the right to seek discovery outside of the administrative record as this would permit the Court to evaluate the role conflict of interest played in LINA’s decision to deny benefits. Because LINA was both the plan administrator and payer of benefits, conflict of interest was a possibility. His attorneys contended that LINA’s claim review was biased because it has emphasized medical reports that favored denying the benefits and deemphasized reports that demonstrated Hall’s total disability.

LINA argued that the scope of discovery Hall’s attorneys were requesting exceeded that permissible when the standard of review under ERISA is the arbitrary and capricious standard. The insurance company claimed that Hall had to do more than suggest there might be a conflict of interest. His disability attorneys also had to show that there was reason to believe that the discovery would reveal a procedural defect in LINA’s benefits determination.

The Court began to consider the case law applying to discovery. In Glenn v. Metlife, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a deferential standard of review was appropriate when a plan administrator operated under a structural conflict of interest – when an insurance company determines who is eligible for the benefits and then pays for those benefits out of its own pocket. This ruling encourages courts to consider whether a disability insurance provider has a history of biased claims administration and to review the active steps an insurance company has put into place to reduce potential bias and to promote accuracy in their claims processing methods.

A prior ruling in the Seventh Circuit, Semien v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., had established a two-pronged requirement before limited discovery could be compelled by the Court. First, the specific conflict of interest or instance in which the conflict occurred had to be identified. Then, convincing arguments for how limited discovery into these allegations would reveal a procedural defect in the plan administrator’s determination had to be presented.

Insurance company and Disability Attorneys agree on conflict of interest.

Both LINA and Hall’s disability attorneys agreed that the conflict of interest described in Glenn applied to LINA. But they disagreed on whether Semien bore a connection to discovery in this case.

There has been considerable variation on how Glenn has been applied in District Courts across the country. Some courts within the Seventh Circuit had ruled that Glenn overruled Semien, while others considered Semien still applicable. Some rulings have found that allowing discovery into evidence relevant to the claim administrator’s alleged conflict of interest should be more accessible as under Glenn, but tempered by the relevancy required under Semien.

Court determines that discovery is necessary to prove whether disability insurance company had a conflict of interest.

The Court in this case sided with Glenn, determining that without information that revealed whether a relationship existed between LINA, Intracorp and Dr. Brenman, it would be impossible for the Court to determine if this relationship resulted in a biased claims review. LINA had already answered questions on the Interogatory that implied the disability insurance company’s acceptance that information about the structural conflict of interest was relevant, but the company wanted to be selective in their disclosure. (This is something the Court generally looks on with disfavor.)

The Court ruled that Hall’s disability attorneys had the right to conduct reasonable and limited discovery into the extent to which conflict of interest colored the long-term disability denial decision. But the Court was not going to give cart-blanche rights to discovery. Each request would be evaluated for the reasonable nature of the request.

Court supports disability attorney’s interrogatories.

The Court found every interrogatory to the point and ordered LINA to supply all the requested answers. The requests to produce information were also in most cases sufficiently limited in their scope. One request for information was too broad in that it asked for copies of the correspondence between all of LINA’s medical examiners during the time Hall’s claim was being reviewed. The Court found that this put highly personal information from many individuals who had no connection with Hall’s case at risk. LINA’s objections were sustained, with one exception. If there was any correspondence relating to Hall’s claim that was not in the administrative record, it was to be delivered as requested.

A second request for reports which reviewing physicians had provided to LINA during the past five years was likewise found to be too broad. Citing Hughs and Barker, the Court found that the potential relevance of these reports was too minor to justify the invasion of the privacy of so many claimants who were not connected with Hall’s claim.

Court considers subpoena to Intracorp.

Finally, the Court addressed the Motion to Quash the subpoena on Intracorp. LINA argued that a copy of the subpoena should have been submitted to them first, before it was sent to Intracorp, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b). The Court found that because Intracorp had not supplied any of the requested documents and LINA had been able to use the Motion to Quash to raise their objections to the subpoena, there was nothing to quash.

The Court moved on to consider the objections to the subpoena. Was Hall’s disability attorney’s requests for the contracts, agreements or writings regarding Dr. Brenman’s reviews or consultations for Intracorp over the last three years reasonable? Was it reasonable to seek information on how much Intracorp had paid Dr. Brenman over the past three years for medical examinations, reviews and consultations? Did the disability insurance attorneys really need to know what contracts existed between Intracorp and LINA? The Court said yes, but ordered that all personal information other than Dr. Brenman’s first name be deleted from the documents produced.

Hall’s disability attorneys had also requested information revealing how many medical reviews and consultations Intracorp had preformed for LINA, and the number specifically performed by Dr. Brenman over the past three years. The Court found this request addressed the issue of bias. The request of information on how much LINA had paid Intracorp for the past three years was likewise validated with the stipulation that all personal information but Dr. Brenman’s name be blacked out.

Court issues protective order when Disability Attorneys requests information not connected to lawsuit directly.

The Court issued a protective order as requested by LINA for Hall’s request for “[a]ny and all documents, letters, records, or other writings which reflect how many medical records reviews were performed by Dr. Brenman (or Intracorp] for LINA over the past three years,” and Request No. 13, which asked for information as to Dr. Brenman’s and Intracorp’s billing rates for the past three years for medical records review. Only records that reflected the fact of Dr. Brenman’s or Intracorp’s work without containing the substance of the work, where personally identifiable information could be blacked out easily, needed to be produced.

LINA argued that some of the evidence requests were seeking duplication of information and placed an undue burden upon the disability insurance company. The Court disagreed and ordered LINA to produce them.

Two of the requests for information were too broad by the Court’s standards. Hall’s disability attorneys had asked for all the disability claims related reports generated by Intracorp for LINA, and Dr. Brenman in particular, over the past three years. The Court issued protective orders for these requests, instructing Intracorp to not respond to these requests.

The final result of these proceedings was favorable to Hall and his disability attorneys. Almost every item that they had asked the Court to compel LINA to respond to had been granted.

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

Policy Holder Rating

0 out of 5
Read 0 reviews
0would recommend
Timely Payments
0.0out of 5
Handling Claim
0.0out of 5
Customer Service
0.0out of 5
0.0out of 5
0.0out of 5
Showing 8 of 642 Reviews

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 >
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 >


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 >
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 >


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.

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
Showing 8 of 70 Answered Questions

Q: Why can Cigna get away with not paying me anything for my disability?

Answered on November 6th 2022 by Attorney Jay Symonds
A: Barbara: It sounds like you have a complex situation. Unfortunately, it also sounds like you had legal represe... Read More >

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: Can Cigna refuse to give me a copy of my short term disability policy?

Answered on September 2nd 2022 by Attorney Cesar Gavidia
A: Dave, since the policyholder is your employer CIGNA can refuse to provide it to you. You should contact your e... 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 and send... Read More >

Q: How can Cigna get away with not answering my calls?

Answered on July 22nd 2019 by Attorney Stephen Jessup
A: Carol, knowing Cigna it sounds like they are approving your claim on appeal for a closed period of time and th... 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 >
Helpful Videos
Showing 12 of 875 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
Showing 8 of 330 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
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
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.