Federal Court Reverses Unum’s Denial of Long-Term Disability Benefits

The case of Arturo J. Otero v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America has an extensive procedural history going back to 2005 when Otero first applied for disability benefits due to his atrial fibrillation. He had a contentious bout with Unum at that time and returned to work on a part-time-basis in 2010. He continued to pay premiums to Unum for disability coverage.

In February 2013, Otero filed a new claim for long-term disability. His atrial fibrillation condition has worsened and he could no longer work even part-time. Unum fought very hard in its attempt to avoid paying Otero benefits and denied his claim. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Otero filed a lawsuit in the Alabama federal district court under the provisions of ERISA. Ultimately, in a 68-page opinion, the court sided with Otero and concluded that this was a new claim, not a reopening of the old claim, and that Otero was entitled to long-term disability benefits.

Standard and Extent of Review

1. Court concludes de novo review is appropriate.

Unum argued that the court should give its denial decision deference and not reverse its decision unless the court found Unum acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The court disagreed and, after reviewing the entire administrative file, even going back to Otero I, held that the court “will not defer to a non-decision that occurred as the result of the mechanical expiration of time as opposed to the actual exercise of administrative discretion.”

The district court then determined its review would be de novo. This means it could make its own decision without deferring to any decision made by Unum during its evaluation of the claim through its administrative review.

2. Documents to be included in court’s review.

The court noted that despite Unum’s argument that the review should be limited to documents in the administrative record and the court should not consider new evidence presented by Otero, Unum also presented documents that were not part of any administrative record. Finally, Unum was forced to agree that, under the de novo standard of review, the court was “not limited to the facts available to the Administrator at the time of the determination.”

3. The court reviewed this as a new claim and not a reopening of the old claim and referenced the current case as Otero II.

“The current claim that Dr. Otero was disabled as of February of 2013, more than six months after the termination of his prior claim, means that the court treats this claim as a new disability claim under the terms of the policy, even though it is based on a recurrent condition.”

Disability Under the Terms of the Policy

The proper standard for evaluation was not how Dr. Otero performed his duties with the group he was working for prior to his disability. According to Unum’s policy, the proper evaluation was “how the job is performed in the national economy.” Since Otero’s atrial fibrillation condition prevented him from working 40 hours a week or taking call, he was disabled from working in his own occupation.

Evidence Otero lost 20% of his income.

The policy required Otero to present evidence that he suffered a 20 percent loss in “indexed monthly earnings” for the three years preceding his February 2013 claim for disability. Unum asserted that the administrative record lacked any evidence of the loss so Otero’s claim for disability must be denied.

After a detailed discussion of evidence that was or was not in the administrative record, evidence Otero should have supplied but failed to do so, and evidence Unum should have asked Otero to supply, but failed to do so, the court concluded:

“While Dr. Otero could have done a better job of providing the relevant documents, because Unum did not address his claim, did not provide a basis for denying the claim, did not specifically request the W-2 forms, and did not clarify the issues, his confusion about what documents were key is understandable. Under these circumstances, the court will not allow Unum to take unfair advantage of the confusion that it created when the lack of information resulting from that confusion is remediable.”

The court remanded to Unum to obtain the missing W-2 forms.

Court’s Final Order

1. Unum waived its right to challenge Otero’s eligibility for coverage due to his part-time work when it continued to accept premium payments from Otero. Therefore, Otero was covered under Unum’s disability policy.

2. As of February 2013, Otero was unable to perform his regular occupation as a neurologist.

3. If, on remand, proper calculations determine that Otero’s income decreased by 20 percent as of February 3, 2013, Unum is required to pay him long-term disability benefits. Unum was given 45 days to provide the court its final determination of the claim.

Although this case was not handled by our office, we believe it can be instructive to those struggling to obtain disability benefits for a second claim for long-term disability benefits after returning to work and once again becoming disabled. Whatever stage you are at with your disability benefits, feel free to call us at Dell & Schaefer for a free case evaluation.

» More Unum disability insurance claim cases.

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

disability insurance companies complaints

Leave a comment or ask us a question

FAQ

Do you help Unum claimants nationwide?

We represent Unum clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a Unum disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Unum. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by Unum.

How do you help Unum claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Unum long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with Unum:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

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.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Steve S. (Utah)

I was in a difficult situation dealing with a disability claim. Once I spoke with Stephen Jessup, that ball started rolling and progress was made. He and his assistant Sonia made a point to stay in contact and made it very simple for me to keep them aware of my status as time passed.

I have a lot of legal experience and Stephen and Sonia treated me with respect, and talked honest and openly with me throughout the conclusion of my claim.

I would strongly recommend using Stephen Jessup to anyone who needs help. It would have been very difficult to have fought for my rights alone.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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