Court Orders Sedgwick to Pay Disability Benefits to Claimant with Carpel Tunnel Syndrome Even though the Employer Offered Her Accommodations

Thornton v. Sedgwick is a fact-driven case in which a California district court ruled that Sedgwick “incorrectly determined in January 2014 that [plaintiff] was no longer eligible for disability benefits.” The plaintiff, Catherine Thornton, was a project manager for Southern California Edison (SCE) when she developed bilateral carpel tunnel syndrome, bilateral cubital tunnel syndrome and epicondylitis. She underwent surgery on both arms. Sedgwick granted her two years of disability on the grounds that she could not perform the material duties of her customary job.

After two years, the definition of disability changed and she could only continue collecting benefits if she could not perform “any reasonable job for the company.” A “reasonable job” was defined as “any gainful activity in any job classification for which you are or may reasonably become fitted by education, training, or experience.” Three physicians examined her and all three said she was very limited in her activities and could not type for more than 15 minutes at a time and would then need 45 minutes of rest. One doctor said she could only do fine manipulation for five minutes, followed by a 30-minute break.

Sedgwick’s Suggested Accommodations

On January 8, 2014, a vocational specialist determined Thornton could work as a Customer Specialist using voice activated software, but he made no mention of the job requirement that she use a mouse. Two days later, Sedgwick notified Thornton her benefits were terminated and she received her last payment on February 28, 2014. Thornton administratively appealed this decision. In response, a company representative said they could not “accommodate an employee who could not perform any mousing.”

A second vocational analysis was done by the same specialist who determined she could use both the voice-activated software along with a foot mouse. Sedgwick’s appeals specialist emailed SCEs disability manager stating it would be unfair to uphold the January decision terminating benefits when the mousing option had not been offered to Thornton at that time. SCE’s response said that such accommodations are standard accommodations and offering Thornton the Customer Specialist Job was a reasonable one. Based on this communication, Sedgwick denied Thornton’s appeal and Thornton then filed this ERISA lawsuit.

Sedgwick Abused Its Discretion in Denying Thornton’s Benefits

The court noted that the record did not support Sedgwick’s “assertion that a foot mouse is a ‘standard accommodation’ or that Sedgwick investigated whether Plaintiff could actually use a foot mouse as a Customer Specialist prior to denying her claim. In fact, three months after Plaintiff’s administrative appeal was denied, SCE’s disability management office indicated that employees are generally restricted to one assistive device.” SCE did not even purchase a foot mouse so plaintiff could take the Customer Specialist test until January 2016. The court concluded that “Sedgwick abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff benefits without fully considering her restrictions.”

Court Finds No Reason to Remand and Orders Sedgwick to Pay Benefits

Sedgwick requested the court to remand, but the court said there was no reason to, since there were no factual determinations left to be made. Sedgwick was “obligated to determine whether Plaintiff could perform a reasonable job for SCE. By January 22, 2016, it had done so.” The court then ordered benefits to be paid from the termination date of March 1, 2014 through January 22, 2016 as well as prejudgment interest.

This case was not handled by our office, but it may provide claimants guidance in their pursuit of long term disability benefits when the job the insurer determines that are eligible for does not take into account whether the insured can work within the suggested accommodations. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please contact any of our lawyers for a free consultation.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you work in my state?

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

What are your fees?

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

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

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

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

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

How can I contact you?

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

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Mike A.

Dell & Schaefer are an excellent Law Firm. They got my Disability Claim reinstated after being dropped by The Standard Insurance company. Insurance companies are always looking for a way to target and drop disability insurance claims of people who truly are disabled and deserve the insurance they have paid for. Dell & Schaefer know of these “tricks” the insurance companies play and waste no time getting your claim reinstated.

Since I have engaged Dell & Schaefer as my attorney, the insurance company no longer hassels me with annoying letters, or calls and they have put my mind at ease that I will not be dropped. In my opinion, Dell & Schaefer are known to the insurance companies as excellent attorneys and therefore do not play games with the their clients. I would recommend Dell & Schaefer to anyone, as they are not only excellent at what they do, but are a pleasure to have on your side.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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