Missouri District court must reconsider Dearborn's LTD denial under a de novo standard

A de novo review gives a disability claimant the ability to have the court review their claim denial without any deference to the disability insurance company’s denial. This case is an example of the extended legal battle and technical legal argument that took place in order to obtain a de novo review for Ms. Jobe. Ruth Jobe lost her ERISA lawsuit in District Court, because that Court sided with the disability insurance plan’s arguments that the plan summary which gave discretion to Dearborn National/Dearborn Group prevailed over the policy document.

Jobe’s disability attorney had argued that the plan summary clearly stated that if there was a conflict between the policy and the summary, the plan prevailed. The policy did not give Dearborn National/Dearborn Group discretion, thus Jobe’s lawsuit should have been reviewed de novo. A surface look at the court decisions used by Dearborn to convince Judge Laughrey of the Western District of Missouri’s Central Division that the plan summary prevailed seem convincing. The problem comes because a series of decisions that support the rights of disability plan participants were completely ignored. For a factual history of this case please see our article Dearborn denies long term disability benefits to woman with fibromyalgia and CFS.

Disability insurance plan argues that Summary Plan Description should prevail.

Typical of many disability insurance policies, Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s long-term disability policy included several documents – a policy document, a certificate of coverage (Summary Plan Description) and an ERISA information statement. The policy stated that if the terms of the Certificate and the policy differed, the policy would govern. The ERISA information statement was attached to Summary Plan Description (SPD). It likewise stated that if something was not covered by the SPD or if something in the SPD conflicted with the Policy, the Policy would “always control.”

Yet, when Dearborn faced Jobe’s disability attorney in Court, Dearborn asked the Court to rule that the exact opposite applied. The disability insurance plan’s arguments had persuaded the District Court. Would they succeed before three judges on the Court of Appeals?

The ERISA information statement gave Dearborn National/Dearborn Group discretionary authority, while the Policy remained silent on this issue. Jobe’s disability insurance attorney argued that because the Policy did not give Dearborn discretionary authority, it should prevail as stated by both the SPD and the ERISA information statement. Dearborn National/Dearborn Group presented three Court decisions ruling in favor of Summary Plan Descriptions prevailing over the Policy.

In Jensen v. SIPCO, the Court ruled that summary plan descriptions are “considered part of the ERISA plan documents.” In this case, the Court also held that a provision in the Summary Plan Description prevailed when it conflicted with the Policy.

In Marolt v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., the Court found that the SPD prevailed when it provided additional rights and privileges not included within the Policy. In Marolt, the SPD actually contradicted the Policy by providing a “bridge” to cover any break in service time. When the plan participant needed to use this “bridge” the ERISA plan administrator claimed the Policy prevailed. The Court ruled otherwise because ERISA mandates that summary disability plan descriptions must provide accessible and adequate descriptions of the Policy. The Court found that the employee was entitled to the bridging provision.

Dearborn National/Dearborn Group wanted the Court to rule that their SPD prevailed even though this directly contradicted the statement in the SPD that the policy prevailed. The disability insurance plan claimed the SPD secured additional rights for the plan administrator. To bolster this claim, Dearborn National/Dearborn Group cited Gamboa. This case revolved around the right of an ERISA health and welfare plan to recover benefits paid after the beneficiary of benefits received a settlement of $1 million after successfully suing the person who caused the automobile accident.

The Summary Plan Description was the only insurance plan document. When the health and welfare plan tried to collect the reimbursement as provided for in the SPD, the beneficiary tried to claim that in the absence of a formal plan document, there was no obligation to reimburse the plan. The Court found otherwise. Because no other document existed, the Court ruled that the SPD was the formal plan document. Because the employee had received benefits because of the terms within the SPD, the employee was also obligated to the terms of the SPD. The employee was ordered to reimburse the health and welfare plan for the $750,000 it had paid.

Court finds Gamboa does not apply.

Gamboa failed to apply to Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s situation for two reasons. First, there were no conflicting documents. The SPD was the only document, making it the written policy required by ERISA. Second, the beneficiary of the policy was seeking to avoid the application of the reimbursement provision of the SPD, while simultaneously accepting benefits from the same SPD. Jobe’s disability attorney was not trying to evade one aspect of the SPD while benefiting from another.

Court considers premise behind additional decisions upholding SPD overruling Policy.

In Jensen, the Court determined that an SPD could prevail over a conflicting policy provision because of the importance of disclosure under ERISA. The decision cited other circuit courts of appeals decision to establish this rule but chose not to apply it because in Jensen’s case the plan document was specific and the SPD was silent on the matter under consideration.

In Barker, the Court applied the rule established in Jensen for the first time. The Court used the following reasoning to bind the employer to the promise made in the SPD. The Court found that one of ERISA’s major purposes is to guarantee adequate disclosure to plan participants. Because this requirement is so important, “in the event of a conflict between formal plan provisions and summary plan provisions, the summary plan description provisions prevail.”

The Court applied the rule again, in Marolt. In this case, the Court found that ERISA requires the SPD “be plainspoken for the benefit of average plan participants.” When it “says one thing, and an obscure passage in a transactional document only lawyers will read and understand says something else,” the Court held that terms in the SPD governed based on ERISA’s adequate disclosure mandate.

At the same time, the Court stated in Barker that when the plan administrator is the one seeking enforcement of an SPD provision, the Court assumes that the plan administrator knows all the terms present in the policy. To hold that the summary plan description prevails over the policy in such circumstances “would do little to enhance either party’s understanding of their legal rights and responsibilities.”

The Court has consistently held that the SPD should be a document that is easily interpreted by anyone. No one should need the skills of a disability attorney to determine whether the SPD agrees with the Policy. In Jobe’s case, the conflict over whether Dearborn National/Dearborn Group had the authority to interpret the plan could make the difference between receiving her rightful long-term disability benefits or not. The District Court had already found Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s decision reasonable using the arbitrary and capricious standard of review.

For over 20 years, the Court has reviewed decisions to deny long-term disability benefits under the arbitrary and capricious standard when the plan documents give the administrator authority to interpret the plan. Under this standard, the disability benefit plan need only prove that it made a logical decision in light of the facts. In Jobe’s case, the Policy and SPD conflicted with each other.

In the absence of an SPD, the Court’s default standard of review would be de novo because the policy does not provide discretion. Only the summary does. A reasonable person reading the SPD would determine that the policy prevails over the SPD. After reading the policy, it would be reasonable to conclude that administrator did not have discretion to interpret the policy. This would strip the disability insurance plan of its entitlement to deferential review.

In light of these facts, the Court found that holding that “the summary plan description always prevails over the policy – even where the summary plan description indicates the policy prevails – would only invite further confusion” for plan participants. Indeed, none of the cases presented by Fort Dearborn to support their contention that the SPD should always prevail over the Policy squarely addressed the issue presented by Jobe’s disability attorney – Jobe’s right to protection from the disability insurance plan’s attempt to modify the formal policy by adding rights that benefit the plan and injure the participant.

Jobe’s disability attorney could cite at least three cases where the Court has ruled that clauses granting the administrator discretion in the summary plan description do not overrule a policy when it contains a procedure for amending or altering the plan. Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s policy contained a formal amendment policy, a requirement under ERISA.

The Court recognized that if it were to rule that the SPD had the power to amend the Policy, then disability insurance plans could begin issuing policies that are silent on key provisions and start using their summary plan descriptions to add provisions that are favorable to the Plan. In Curtiss-Wright Corp., the Supreme Court concluded that while ERISA’s amendment requirement isn’t a disclosure requirement, it is there to establish formal amendment procedures. Otherwise, key terms could be changed by a summary plan description without being held accountable to the level agreed to within the policy.

In this case, the Court’s ultimate decision rested on what a reasonable person would conclude after reading the summary plan description. The Court concluded that the average disability insurance plan participant would have concluded that the policy prevailed if a conflict arose. It was reasonable for Jobe to conclude that Dearborn National/Dearborn Group did not have discretionary authority.

The Court of Appeals determined that Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s decision to deny Jobe long-term disability benefits was reached using the wrong standard of review. Rather than perform the de novo review itself, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision and sent the case back for review under the de novo standard. It will be interesting to see if this results in a reversal of Dearborn National/Dearborn Group’s denial of long-term disability benefits.


Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong Dearborn Appeal Package

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

Learn more

Sue Dearborn

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

Read more

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

Learn more

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

Learn more

Negotiate a Dearborn Lump-Sum Settlement

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

Learn more

Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(0)
Helpful Videos
(861)
Showing 12 of 861 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(329)
Showing 8 of 329 Benefit Tips

Dearborn National Disability & Lawsuit Tips

If you've recently submitted a claim for long term disability benefits to Dearborn National, ... Read More >

What Happens if I Sue Dearborn Before They Decide on My Long Term Disability Benefit Appeal?

In Lisa K. Bunner v. Dearborn National Life Insurance Company (Dearborn), Dearborn denied Plaintiff's ... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #4 - Your Doctor Is Misled By the Disability Company

When you're seeking disability benefits under a long term disability policy, your medical rec... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #3 - Video & Social Media Surveillance

One thing many long term disability claimants don't know about (or expect) from the claims re... Read More >

How Do You Fight a Long-Term Disability Denial?

Getting a denial letter from your disability insurance company is one of the ultimate insults... Read More >

Disability Denial Reason #2 - Change of Disability Definition & Vocational Review

One of the top reasons for terminating a claimant's long term disability benefits involves th... Read More >

Disability Denial Reason #1 – Paper Review & IME

At Dell Disability Lawyers, we've seen insurance companies give countless reasons to deny lon... Read More >

How to Apply for Reliance Standard Disability Benefits & Top 5 Reasons for a Claim Denial

At Dell & Schaefer we’ve handled hundreds of long term disability insurance claims against Reliance Standard, and have learned a few thi... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(369)
Showing 8 of 369 Dell Disability Cases

Engineer With Depression Wins Prudential LTD Appeal

The claimant is a former Senior Technology Services Engineer for Accolade, Inc. who was force... Read More >

New York Life Approves Disability Benefits for School Teacher With Multiple Sclerosis

Our client, a former elementary school teacher suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, contacted our office after New York Life terminated her clai... Read More >

Lincoln Denies Disability Insurance Benefits to 66 Years old Software Developer with Long Covid and MS

Our client came to us after he was denied continued Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits by The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Previ... Read More >

Lincoln LTD Denial Reversed for an Occupational Therapist that was Denied Benefits After 24 Months

Our now client came to us after she received a denial letter following her receipt of long term disability b... Read More >

Nurse With Knee and Back Disorder Wins Hartford Disability Appeal

We represent a General Duty Nurse who was denied long term disability benefits as Hartford im... Read More >

Dell Disability Lawyers Win Disability Insurance Appeal Against Prudential for KPMG Employee

Our client, a former Managing Director - Tax Consultant for KPMG contacted our office after h... Read More >

Lawyer Wins 24 Month Mental Nervous Prudential Disability Denial

Our client, a former law partner of a large national law firm, filed for disability with Prud... Read More >

How does Reliance Standard deny long term disability benefits after paying for three years?

A former Payroll Manager for Solairus Aviation, a large Private Jet Charter and Aircraft Mana... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(764)
Showing 8 of 764 Lawsuit Stories

Dearborn faces disability denial lawsuit from disabled account clerk of Katz Insurance Group diagnosed with PTSD

Recently, a former account clerk of the Katz Insurance Group filed a lawsuit against the Dearborn National/Dearborn Group through a disabilit... Read More >

Missouri District court must reconsider Dearborn's LTD denial under a de novo standard

A de novo review gives a disability claimant the ability to have the court review their claim denial without any deference to the disability i... Read More >

Dearborn National/Dearborn Group denies long term disability benefits to woman with fibromyalgia and CFS

When Ruth Jobe lost her ERISA disability lawsuit in District Court, she could have decided that there was no hope for recovering the disabilit... Read More >

Unum Wrongfully Terminated Disabled Lawyer’s Disability Claim of Depression and Anxiety Despite Improvement in His Condition

This Unum lawsuit appeal case is a great victory for all Unum disability claimants. This case supports all ... Read More >

Federal Court Overturns Aetna Denial Of Disability Benefits

In the recent case of Ferrin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. a federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois determined that Aetna improperly te... Read More >

Court Finds Irregularities in Procter & Gamble Long Term Disability Benefit Denial

In ERISA cases filed in a district court asking for judicial review of a plan administrator's denial of benefits, the court is generally limit... Read More >

Federal Judge Makes Companion Life Insurance Pay Long Term Disability Benefits

Companion Life tried to play games and deny long term disability benefits, but thankfully a New Mexico Federal Judge made them pay disability ... Read More >

NFL Disability Review Board Ignores Evidence of Disability and Appeal Court Reverses Lower Court Decision

In Darren Mickell v. Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Players Retirement Plan (Plan), Mickell spent nine years in the NFL as a defensive e... 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.