Court Orders Hartford to Disclose Relationship with University Disability Consortium

In an ongoing Hartford disability lawsuit governed by ERISA, a Kansas Federal Magistrate Judge recently ordered Hartford to disclose information regarding its relationship with the “third party vendor” University Disability Consortium (UDC). Additionally, the Judge ordered Hartford to provide data on the number of claims it receives from AIG employees and the percentage it approves/denies.

A former employee of American International Group, Inc. (AIG) was forced to file a lawsuit against the Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company after her continued claim for disability benefits was denied by Hartford. The claimant, a three year employee of AIG, was forced to leave work in June 2008 due to various health problems including “Crohn’s disease, chronic blood loss anemia, malabsorption disorders, B-12 deficiency, left-side colitis/proctitis, and chronic pain.” She applied for and was granted long term disability benefits in January 2009.

After 24 months of benefits, the definition of disability in her policy changed from being unable to perform her “own occupation” to being unable to perform “any occupation.” In light of this more difficult standard to satisfy, Hartford denied her continued disability benefits in January of 2011. After filing the required administrative ERISA appeals, a Federal lawsuit was filed as a remedy of last resort.

What is Hartford’s Relationship with University Disability Consortium?

The disability insurance attorney for the claimant sent Hartford’s attorney discovery requests so that it could investigate whether Hartford acted improperly while handling their client’s claim. Specific requests were sent that included inquiries regarding Hartford’s relationship with University Disability Consortium (UDC).

Hartford and other similar disability insurance carriers often hire “third party vendors” such as UDC or MLS to have the vendor’s doctors conduct an allegedly “independent” review of the medical documents of a claimant. Although this is done to show that such reviews were conducted impartially by doctors not associated with the insurance company, the review invoices are still paid by the insurance companies, and the vendors and the reviewing physicians are aware of this. UDC can be retained hundreds of times a year to review the disability claims of Hartford policyholders.

The fear of every claimant is therefore that the physician conducting the review is more likely to side with the insurance company, who is in effect paying the bill, so that future referrals will also come to the doctor. In light of this fear, the attorney for the claimant sent discovery requests to the attorney for Hartford to learn more about the UDC and Hartford relationship.

The plaintiff asked for explanations concerning the method and amount of compensation that was provided by Hartford to UDC and the reviewing doctors for reviewing the medical files and making recommendations to Hartford.

Hartford attempted to hide the details of its relationship with UDC and refused to provide such information to the plaintiff. The Kansas Federal Magistrate Judge told Hartford that it must turn over such information as it “is relevant to the issue of whether the ‘third party vendor’ is truly independent or financially biased.”

The plaintiff’s attorney also requested statistical information concerning AIG employee disability claims and Hartford’s denial rates of such claims for the years 2008-2011. Hartford also attempted to hide this information. However, the Magistrate Judge ruled that such evidence is relevant and, as such, Hartford must also provide it to the plaintiff.

Although this ruling is, of course, fact specific to this case, this ruling from the Federal District Court of Kansas is encouraging for all claimants who are forced to file lawsuits in the future for denied disability claims. This specific claim is not being handled by Attorneys Dell & Schaefer.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

View videos, articles, resolved cases and claimant reviews about your specific disability insurance company.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

There are 2 comments

  • Renee,

    You can certainly attempt to limit the scope of the authorization. Has Hartford contacted you for a field interview with a representative. Claims based on conditions such as Meniere’s are always tricky for the reasons you stated. Please feel free to contact our office to discuss how we may be able to assist you in getting through this evaluation.

    Stephen JessupMay 30, 2015  #2

  • I am preparing paperwork for The Hartford as I am approaching the 24 month review, and The Hartford has indicated that my claim must be re-evaluated. I suffer from Meniere’s Syndrome –tricky because my condition changes, and severe attacks of vertigo are spontaneous and inconsistent. When I am experiencing an attack I am unable to do much of anything at all; it’s very debilitating and uncomfortable.

    Throughout the last 21 months they have made it continually difficult, and are forever threatening and finding reasons to deny payment. One of the forms I have been asked to fill out is an “Authorization to Obtain and Disclose Information.” It feels very far reaching and sweeping –all financial records, credit information, etc. Do I have to sign this form? It seems I can agree to release specific information when requested by them rather than sign this sweeping authorization. It seems the relevant issue is my health and doctor evaluations.

    ReneeMay 29, 2015  #1

FAQ

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Reviews

Bruce R. (Arizona)

Steve Dell has done an exceptional job with my disability application process. The firm is extremely well managed. They have acquired an incredible amount of experience over many years. I recommend them for disability insurance claims without reservation. 

Don (Florida)

I called this firm a few months ago completely disparaged due to a company cutting off disability benefits at a time that nearly caused me to lose everything.

Attorney Alex Palmera and Danielle worked hard to reach an amicable settlement and my case was settled a few months later. This is a good firm and the specific expertise in disability claims saved me countless hours of hassle at a time when an already fragile state existed.

Thank you Mr. Palamara and Danielle.

Sandra B. (Arkansas)

I have nothing but good things to say about how my buyout was handled with my disability claim. The level of professionalism was amazing. All of my questions and concerns were answered either by Danielle L. or Alex P. in such a timely manner and with such care I would recommend them in a heartbeat to anyone needing to approach their provider with buyout options.

They did a fantastic job communicating between the provider and me, always keeping my best interest at heart and always answering my many many questions. They really did take most of the stress out of this whole situation. I would give them a 10 out of 10 for every step of this crazy journey. Thank you so much for helping me through this.

Brenda R. (New York)

I needed assistance with an appeal for a LTD claim that was initially denied. Stephen understood what needed to happen to win the appeal and he did win the appeal for me.

Michael C. (Virginia)

Greg Dell and his assistant Anneli have been extremely responsive and helpful, not only our initial consultations, but in follow-ups 1 and 2 years later with the insurance company to ensure that they comply with their agreements (which they did), as well as a separate and only slightly-related inquiry about our health insurance. I always hear back from them very quickly, which is rare and greatly appreciated.

Speak With An Attorney Now

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