Missouri Court Awards Full Disability Benefits in Mental Nervous Condition Case Against Hartford

This ERISA lawsuit filed in Missouri Federal Court against Hartford is a textbook-like example of how Hartford will go to great lengths to ignore clear-cut medical evidence, including standing behind knowingly faulty and questionable reports from their paid physician file reviewers, as a means to justify denying claims of those who are truly disabled and entitled to benefits under the terms of their Long Term Disability Plan. Although it took nearly 6 years for the Plaintiff to be awarded benefits (he filed his LTD claim in 2007), justice did prevail in the end.

The Court was able to clearly pinpoint the numerous inaccuracies in the information that Hartford relied on when making its decision to deny the Plaintiff’s long term disability benefits, and found that the denial decision was arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, the Court found that Hartford failed to follow its own claim handling procedure in the evaluation of the Plaintiff’s claim. This lawsuit was not handled by our law firm.

The Plaintiff in this case, Mr. T, was employed at a University as a Development Director – Planned Giving (fundraiser), which was an executive level, high functioning position. He claimed that his disability resulted from the aggravation of numerous mental and psychological impairments, including depression and anxiety. He was treated by his primary psychiatrist, Dr. Minchin, who diagnosed him with Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, and noted his symptoms of increased anxiety, poor concentration, low mood and low energy level, as well as major impairment in several areas including work and family relations.

Several months after ceasing work at the University, Mr. T took an unskilled labor position as a server at a local Winery. He worked part-time, 20 hours per week, but his hours temporarily increased to 40 hours per week during the Winery’s busy season

Hartford’s initial decision to deny Mr. T’s claim for long term disability benefits was based on a file review performed by licensed psychologist consultant, Dr. Wiger. On appeal, Hartford’s decision to uphold the denial of benefits was based on a file review performed by a peer review psychiatrist, Dr. Rater.

Hartford Failed To Consider The More Detailed And Consistent Reports Of The Claimant’s Treating Physician And Instead Relied On The Inconsistent Reports Of Its Reviewing Physician Consultants

Dr. Minchin

Although ERISA plan administrators are not required to give special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians, they may not arbitrarily refuse to credit reliable evidence, i.e., the contrary opinions of a treating physician, without explanation. In this case, Mr. T’s treating physician, Dr. Minchin, repeatedly opined that Mr. T was unable to perform his job duties due to poor concentration, high levels of anxiety, impaired reasoning and judgment.

After the initial denial, Dr. Minchin wrote a letter wherein she stated that, in her medical judgment, Mr. T was unable to perform a number of job-related activities due to serious impairment caused by his current exacerbation of Major Depressive Disorder. Mr. T was unable to influence people in their opinions, attitudes and judgments; his illness has severely impaired his ability to direct, control or plan the activities of others, perform effectively under stress, attain precise set limits, deal with people and make judgments and decisions; he had moderate impairment in expressing personal feelings and working under specific instructions. She further stated that it was her medical judgment, “within medical certainty”, that Mt. T was disabled by his psychiatric illness with respect to performing his prior job duties.

After the denial was upheld, Dr. Minchin wrote a second letter wherein she strongly disagreed with Hartford’s decision. First, she pointed out that Dr. Rater noted in his report that he attempted to contact Dr. Minchin on several occasions and left messages but the calls were never returned. She clarifies that, in fact, she and Dr. Rater spoke on 2 separate occasions. She states that they discussed Mr. T’s mental status at the time of his last appointment, as well as his cognitive abilities with respect to his prior occupation at the University compared to his responsibilities at his job at the Winery. She states that she emphasized the depressive symptoms Mr. T has been experiencing and their negative effect on his cognitive functioning. She clarifies that at no point during her phone conversations with Dr. Rater did she ever opine that Mr. T was capable of performing the job duties of his position at the University, and neither her office notes, nor her phone conversation with Dr. Rater, support Dr. Rater’s conclusion that Mr. T is not experiencing psychiatric restrictions or limitations. She addressed her concerns regarding statements Hartford made regarding Mr. T’s ability to function in his prior occupation and notes that his prior position was an executive level position which required excellent interpersonal skills, reasoning skills, persuasion skills and sound judgment. She compared his current position at the Winery, wherein Mr. T has minimal responsibilities which include, greeting customers, stocking shelves, pouring wine, and wiping down the counter. She notes that when he began orientation for another position at the Winery, he experienced such anxiety that he was unable to finish, his concentration waned considerably and his confidence suffered. She also expressed disapproval that Dr. Rater was willing to offer a clinical opinion regarding Mr. T’s mental status and capabilities without ever examining Mr. T himself.

The Court found that Hartford gave little, if any, weight to Dr. Minchin’s assessments in its review of Mr. T’s claim and instead relied almost entirely on the opinions of its paid physician file reviewers. Further, Hartford did not offer any reasoning for its decision to disregard Mr. Minchin’s opinions. Accordingly, the Court determined that, “Hartford’s failure to address Dr. Minchin’s observations in a meaningful manner rendered its denial of Plaintiff’s claim arbitrary and capricious.”

Dr. Wiger

In its initial review of Mr. T’s claim, Hartford had a file review performed by Dr. Wiger. The Court recognized that Hartford’s reliance on Dr. Wiger’s conclusions initially may be been reasonable. Dr. Wiger concluded that, “There was no evidence of ongoing psychotherapy, nor evidence of more intensive treatment such as psychiatric hospitalizations. There was little evidence of ongoing treatment other than medical management once every three months. This level of treatment is not consistent with a mental health condition causing limitations and restrictions.”

However, Mr. T did, in fact, undergo a psychiatric hospitalization for 3 days in December 2007. Hartford had these hospitalization records in its possession but never provided them to Dr. Wiger for his review and consideration. As such, the Court found that Hartford’s continued reliance on Dr. Wiger’s conclusions without alteration in its subsequent decision was arbitrary and capricious because Dr. Wiger acknowledged that the hospitalization evidence may have changed his opinion.

Dr. Rater

The Court stated that it found Hartford’s reliance on Dr. Rater’s conclusions “even more troubling.” Dr. Rater provided 3 reports to Hartford. In the first report, he entirely failed to mention his phone conversation with Dr. Minchin and even misrepresents that he attempted to call her, left her messages, and she never returned his calls. In the second report, he acknowledges the phone conversation with Dr. Minchin but states that it did not change his prior opinion that Mr. T was not disabled. In the third report, the Court points out an inconsistency where Dr. Rater states he based his opinion in part on the fact that Mr. T had allegedly devoted time and effort to moving, which he states is “a complicated task with multiple cognitive tasks required.” Dr. Rater reached this conclusion despite having acknowledged that Dr. Minchin, who informed Dr. Rater of the move, had no idea how involved or uninvolved Mr. T was with the planning and execution of the move. Based on all of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in Dr. Rater’s reports, the Court found that Hartford’s decision to rely on Dr. Rater’s opinion in denying Mr. T’s claim for benefits was arbitrary and capricious, especially considering the consistent opinions of Mr. T’s treating physician.

Hartford Failed To Adhere To Own Claim Handling Procedures And Failed To Evaluate The Non-Exertional Demands Of The Development Director Position

Mr. T states in his Complaint that Hartford failed to follow the procedures of its own claims manual which requires that, in cases where a claimant is claiming disability due to a mental illness, Hartford must consider the “non-exertional demands” of the occupation. The Court notes that, “examples of non-exertional demands include, but are not limited to: repetitive or short cycle work; directing, controlling or planning activities of others; dealing with people; working alone or apart in physical isolation from others; making judgments or decisions.”

Hartford never analyzed whether Mr. T could perform the non-exertional demands of his job, even though Hartford possessed the relevant job description. Instead, the Court notes that Hartford continually relied on the fact that Mr. T was able to work at his job in the Winery to support its denial of Mr. T’s claim. However, Hartford never offered an explanation as to how the 2 jobs could be considered comparable. The Courts notes that Dr. Minchin did provide a comparison of the 2 jobs.

The Court determined that Mr. T’s position as a Development Director was “patently distinguishable” from that of the unskilled labor position of server at a winery. Due to the fact that Hartford relied on Mr. T’s ability to perform the job of server at a winery to determine that he was, therefore, able to perform his job as a Development Director, indicates that Hartford’s decision to deny long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious.

The Court granted Mr. T’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied Hartford’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court further awarded Mr. T long-term disability benefits for the full 24 months that were available to him pursuant to the terms of the Plan. Mr. T also requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs. However, the Court deferred ruling on that issue until the proper motions are submitted.

If you have questions regarding your claim for disability benefits with Hartford, or if your disability claim has been denied, feel free to call Disability Attorneys Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.


Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong Hartford Appeal Package

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

Learn more

Sue Hartford

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

Learn more

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

Learn more

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

Learn more

Negotiate a Hartford Lump-Sum Settlement

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

Learn more

Hartford Reviews
(642)

Policy Holder Rating

1.5 out of 5
Read 71 reviews
0%would recommend
5
0%
4
0%
3
1%
2
52%
1
46%
Timely Payments
1.9out of 5
Handling Claim
1.9out of 5
Customer Service
1.8out of 5
Dependable
1.8out of 5
Value
1.9out of 5
Showing 8 of 642 Reviews
Hartford

Former Hartford employee has had life insurance and accidental death policy's revoked for one late premium payment

Reviewed by Becky H. THOMAS on February 12th 2024   Verified Policyholder | February 2024 date of disability
Dislike how they are constantly interrupting the lives of their disabled EE's whom are entitled to benefit which they paid into out of there pay check every pay period onl... read more >
Reply
Sent on February 12th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Thank you for your review of Hartford and we appreciate you sharing.  It’s sad they don’t take care of their own employees.

Hartford

Bad Faith

Reviewed by Dustin G on October 12th 2023   Verified Policyholder | November 2020 date of disability
They kept asking my doctor for the same information that they did not need to process my claim. He kept sending in the same information, and they kept asking for it. My do... read more >
Hartford

Denied by Hartford after 20 years of Payments

Reviewed by Mary on October 11th 2023   Verified Policyholder
Hello,I am a Multiple Sclerosis patient. I also have Lymph-edema, Asthma, Blood-clot problems, Bi-Polar 1 Depression, and Head & Neck Injuries. And now, due to MS, Spast... read more >
Hartford

This company is a scam!

Reviewed by Hana K. on July 13th 2023   Verified Policyholder | December 2022 date of disability
The Hartford does not pay claims. The Hartford only collects premiums. The Hartford doesn’t care if you are terminally ill. I’ve been employed at my employer since 201... read more >
Hartford

Hartford Stopped Payments

Reviewed by Fed up in PA on April 13th 2023   Verified Policyholder | January 2023 date of disability
Worst company ever. Their analysts will go against your treating provider every single time. Horrible experience, just horrible.
Hartford

Hartford never paid me

Reviewed by Nanette M. on April 26th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I went on disability March 25, 2019 until Dec. 23, 2019 from my job FedEx. The Hartford insurance company didn’t pay me my disability check after the end of July. I appe... read more >
Reply
Sent on April 26th 2020 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Nanette, we are sorry to hear that your claim for benefits for the period of July through December was denied. Please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.read more >

Hartford

Hartford rep felt so guilty over how the company treated me that she quit

Reviewed by Delton on April 8th 2020   Verified Policyholder
It’s been since 1998 but they really screwed me over big time and caused my family and I much distress ~ first they required me to go to a psychiatric doctor before they... read more >
Reply
Sent on April 8th 2020 by Attorney Rachel Alters

Delton, I’m sorry to hear about the experience you had with Hartford. Unfortunately since your claim dates back to 1998 it would be too late to file suit as the statu... read more >

Hartford

Hartford ajuster won't return my calls. I might have to move back to California

Reviewed by Jesse on March 17th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I was awarded medical for life, for my back injuries at work by the court of Los Angeles in California years ago. I moved to Colorado two years ago and for the past few mo... read more >
Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(66)
Showing 8 of 66 Answered Questions

Q: Disability company dropped my monthly benefits

Answered on February 28th 2024 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Since you went back to work full time you would not qualify for further benefits. You could file a new claim i... Read More >

Q: The Hartford stopped monthly benefits for repayment due to an overpayment. Once monthly benefits end do I still have to repay remaining overpayment balance?

Answered on February 28th 2024 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Yes, you will still be responsible for the overpayment even if your Hartford benefits end. Read More >

Q: Short term vs long term

Answered on February 14th 2024 by Attorney Jay Symonds
A: Nightwatcher, you and your treatment providers will be required to submit additional records and information a... Read More >

Q: Can I do anything to get my LTD ?

Answered on February 3rd 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Jacqueline:You should call us to discuss your Hartford disability claim. It usually takes 60-90 days for Har... Read More >

Q: Lifetime disability policy with Hartford

Answered on January 29th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Deb,Thank you for your question about a Hartford lifetime disability policy. In order to support your pos... Read More >

Q: Can the Hartford reduce my long term disability payment due to a rental income?

Answered on January 25th 2024 by Attorney Cesar Gavidia
A: Usually non-work that is not described a deductible source of income the disability policy would not reduce th... Read More >

Q: Is there a specific video to help me prepare for a Hartford doctor appointment (IME)?

Answered on January 3rd 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: We have prepared a few videos on independent medical exams requested by disability insurance companies. Whethe... Read More >
Helpful Videos
(896)
Showing 12 of 896 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(331)
Showing 8 of 331 Benefit Tips

Does Hartford Pay Disability Insurance Claims?

At Dell & Schaefer, we get questions about Hartford long term disability policies on ne... Read More >

How Does Hartford Long Term Disability Work?

The most common questions for a disability attorney involve understanding how disability cove... Read More >

What Happens If My Hartford Short Term Disability Claim is Denied?

Understand your rights once your Hartford short term disability income claim has been denied.... Read More >

How Long Does a Hartford Short Term or Long Term Disability Claim Last?

Hartford disability income policy holders expect Hartford to pay their Short Term & Long-... Read More >

If I Convert my Former Employee Disability Policy to a Private Policy Does ERISA Govern?

Many employer welfare benefit plans offer employees who quit their employment the option of converting their disability insurance pl... Read More >

Is the Hartford Disability Purchase of Aetna Bad for Aetna LTD Policy Holders?

In October 2017 Hartford Insurance company agreed to purchase the disability and life insuran... Read More >

Hartford Disability Claim Problems

Hartford is requesting long term disability claimants to provide additional documentation fro... Read More >

How Can I Protect Myself At A Hartford IME Exam?

In this video, disability insurance attorneys Rachel Alters and Cesar Gavidia discuss what yo... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(375)
Showing 8 of 375 Dell Disability Cases

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 >

Executive Director with Meniere's Denied Long Term Disability Insurance Benefits By Hartford

Our client, came to us when he was unjustly denied his claim for LTD benefits by Aetna, now Hartford, assert... Read More >

A Hartford Disability Benefit Lawsuit Victory for Truist Banker with Lupus

Our client found us after she was denied continued disability insurance benefits by the Hartf... Read More >

Hartford Denies Disability Benefits To Home Depot Employee 3 Weeks Before Change of Disability Definition

Our client was a former in-store merchandising associate responsible for the movement of merc... Read More >

Hartford Denies Long Term Disability Benefits After Paying for 22 Years

It is crazy that Hartford denied long term disability benefits to our client after paying for... Read More >

Hartford Overturns Denial of Disability Benefits on Appeal

Our client, a former clerk at a coal mine with severe lumbar back problems first, contacted our office and spoke with Attorney Stephen Jessup ... Read More >

Hartford Approves Disability Claim After Appeal Deadline

Prior to filing for disability our client worked as a registered nurse in a hospital setting, suffering from multiple chronic medical conditio... Read More >

Hartford overturned its previous denial of LTD benefits for Illinois Account Representative

Our client, Mr. K, formerly worked as an Account Representative for an international brokerage firm. In May 2017 a number of medical issues, i... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(765)
Showing 8 of 765 Lawsuit Stories

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 >

Hartford Admits to Improper Offset, Agrees to Reimburse 10 Years of Wrongfully Withheld Money

In August of 2019, the next of kin for a man currently incarcerated in Florida State Prison reached out to our firm as his relative had been d... Read More >

Court Finds Video Surveillance Renders Claimant’s Self-Reporting Unreliable and Upholds Hartford’s Termination of LTD Benefits

In Cummings v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. (Hartford), Plaintiff was employed by the Free-Port McMoran ... Read More >

Can Medical Records Created After the Eligibility Period Support a Claim for Disability Benefits?

In James s. Louis v. The Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company (Hartford), Plaintiff was a Senior Principal Product... Read More >

Appeals Court Upholds Hartford's Termination of Disability Benefits

In Scott Griffin v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Company, Plaintiff was a medical transcriptionist who was initially awarded long te... Read More >

Hartford Disability Company Field Interview Request and Video Surveillance

Hartford Disability Company, and other disability insurers, use video surveillance and field interviews as a technique to deny claims. A recen... Read More >

Hartford Long Term Disability Benefit Denial Reversed by Minnesota Federal Judge

A long term disability insurance claimant had his benefits denied when a doctor made a mistak... Read More >

Federal District Court Overturns Hartford's Denial of Long Term Disability Benefits

In the recent decision of Tobin v Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co. a Michigan Federal District Court overturned Hartford’s denial of long t... 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.