• Sedgwick Disability Benefit Claims

Federal Judge orders Sedgwick Claims Management to pay disability benefits to PNC Financial Services Group, Inc’s Collection/Recovery Team Manager

Disability claimants need to be extremely cautious when dealing with Sedgwick Claims Management Service Inc. (Sedgwick). From our law firms’ experience of handling thousands of disability insurance claims, Sedgwick is one of the top three most difficult companies to deal with. Unfortunately, Sedgwick will capitalize on any opportunity to deny a claimant their disability benefits. This case discusses the unreasonable conduct used by Sedgwick to wrongfully deny disability benefits.

Following denial of claims for disability benefits and exhaustion of all administrative remedies, a beneficiary of a disability benefits insurance plan have an option under the Employee Retirement Income Act (ERISA) to file a civil action for judicial review of a claim. The case of Beverly A. Haisley vs. Segdwick Claims Management Service Inc, PNC Financial Services Group, Inc and the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan is a good example of how the Court will review a Sedgwick disability claim denial.

The Facts of the Case Against Sedgwick Claims Management Service Filed by a Disability Lawyer

Working as a collection/Recovery team manager for the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc’s, the plaintiff suffered from anxiety and depression following the death of her mother. It was stated that the plaintiff was also suffering from Peripheral Neuropathy around the same time. The plaintiff filed for short term disability benefits and was awarded disability benefits from June 5th 2007 to October 2nd 2007.

Upon the expiry of her short term disability benefits, the plaintiff applied for transition to long term disability benefits on October 11th 2007. The plaintiff was initially approved to receive long term disability benefits by a Sedgwick’s long term disability case worker on November 30th 2007. However, upon the recommendation of a Sedgwick’s supervisor, the approval was later formally suspended on December 20th 2007 due to “a lack of current treatment information on file supportive of continuing total disability.” Despite providing additional information to support her claim, Sedgwick formally denied the plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits on February 28th 2008 based on the results of peer reviews conducted by Sedgwick.

The plaintiff appealed through her Pittsburgh Pennsylvania disability attorney Sedgwick’s decision to deny her claim for long term disability benefits on May 7th 2008. Based on the recommendations of two physiatrists engaged by Sedgwick, the plaintiff’s appeal was denied on June 23rd 2008. The plaintiff was also informed that no further information would now be considered and the administrative record of her claim was now closed. On October 16th 2008, the plaintiff filed legal action against Sedgwick alleging violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Legal Issues before the Pennsylvania District Court

The District Court had to consider several issues before it in this case. First was the issue of who the plaintiff can sue as the both Sedgwick and the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc argued that the Plan should be the proper defendant.

Second, the district court had to consider the argument of Sedgwick that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by the terms of the Plan.

The third issue which the District Court had to consider was whether Sedgwick had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its denial of the plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits.

The Plan Administrator as the Proper Defendant

The District Court ruled that the plaintiff was only seeking benefits from the assets of the Plan and the legal claim against Sedgwick was “essentially a claim that is only nominally asserted against the Plan Administrator and is, for all practical purpose s, a claim made against the relevant plan itself.” The Court ruled that the exercise of control over the administration of benefits was the “defining feature” of the proper defendant here.

Timeliness of the Plaintiff’s Claim

Sedgwick had argued that the plaintiff’s claim was time-barred as she did not apply for long term disability benefits within 90 days of when Total Disability began (June 5th 2007) as required by the terms of the Plan. The Court ruled that Sedgwick now could not rely on the 90 days limitation period as it HAD initially approved the plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits on November 30th 2007 and hence waiving the defense of untimeliness by failing to assert it as a basis for denying a claim in the first place.

Conduct of Sedgwick as Arbitrary and Capricious

The court ruled that Sedgwick had acted arbitrarily and capriciously during its decision making process due to several factors:

The reversal of Sedgwick’s initial approval for long term disability benefits claim without any additional medical evidence. The inconsistent treatment of the same medical information deemed sufficient for the initial approval but later judged as insufficient weigh heavily in the plaintiff’s favor.

The fact that Sedgwick did not conduct an independent medical examination on the plaintiff but instead relied on a file review of specific impairments or limitations not amendable to considerations by means of a file review. This had risen “”¦questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefit determination.”

The failure by Sedgwick to address the plaintiff’s receipt of Social Security Disability Benefits in its denial of the plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits. This had “suggested procedural unreasonableness” given the circumstance that the plaintiff was encouraged to apply for Social Security Disability Benefits in the first place. The Court pointed out the Social Security Administration standard for determining total disability is more stringent that the less demanding standard employed by Sedgwick.

Determining the Appropriate Remedy

Upon concluding that Sedgwick had acted arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court had to determine the appropriate remedy in this case. Here, the Court makes a distinction between the initial denial of benefits to a termination of benefits. To restore the status quo in this case, the Court ruled that the benefits should be reinstated as Sedgwick’s termination of its claim approval was arbitrary and capricious.

Comments (4)

  • Markisha, is this a short term or long term claim? Have you received a denial letter? I suggest you contact our office and speak with one of the attorneys to discuss in more detail your circumstances and your options.

    Jay Symonds Jun 28, 2021  #4

  • I was approved for benefits and then I was given a new adjuster. A couple weeks blaster my benefits stopped.

    Markisha J. Jun 28, 2021  #3

  • My current workers comp attorney is purposely avoiding my ongoing case. Almost like they may have been paid off. They keep making things to avoid things moving forward.

    Steven P. Jan 14, 2021  #2

  • Sedgwick is fighting me over my STD. Heart Disease, Coronary Heart Disease, Small Artery Disease, COPD, Severe Depression, Anxiety Disorder, 6 disc messed up, 5 bulging and 1 herniated with spurs, it hits the nerve in my back causing spasms. Had 3 heart attack and they stopped 4 heart attacks, acid reflux disease, severe high blood pressure. They tell me there is nothing wrong with me.

    Ruby Flanagan Oct 28, 2014  #1

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you help Sedgwick claimants nationwide?

We represent Sedgwick 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 Sedgwick disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Sedgwick. 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 Sedgwick.

How do you help Sedgwick claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Sedgwick 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 Sedgwick:

  • 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   *****

Tess R.

Mr. Jessup is efficient at his skills but that is not what made my experience wonderful. When you are ill, and been arguing with everyone to get a crap of what you deserve because you have worked hard all your life, paid your taxes, and paid your insurance premiums… yet no one cares. No one cares that they are increasing your symptoms by not paying you the money that you are entitled to.

Mr. Jessup was unbelievably kind and empathetic to my situation. His congenial personality, truly, was the key to hiring him. I felt like even though he had other clients in similar circumstances, he still cared what was happening to me and my family. I felt he cared enough to trust him completely.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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