Postal worker loses long-term disability claim against Hartford Insurance

Shirley Graham, an employee with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) who participated in a long-term disability plan administered by Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Co. (Hartford), brought her case recently before the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Her appeal raised three issues: 1) Did the District Court rule correctly that her disability benefits plan did not qualify as a governmental plan? 2) Was the District Court’s determination that her claim did not qualify for a jury trial correct? 3) Did the District Court made the right determination when it failed to find Hartford’s denial of benefits arbitrary and capricious.

To understand Graham’s claim we will look at the background of her claim.

As a USPS employee, Graham had begun work in November 1976 as a rural letter carrier. She had remained in this position until June 7, 1996 when physical health problems lead to the USPS modifying her job duties to a desk job as a “Modified Rural Carrier.” When her knee and ankle pain increased, Graham took a leave of absence on July 17, 2000 under the Family and Medical Leave Act. On December 1st she was granted disability retirement by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

While Graham had been employed at the USPS, she participated in the National Rural Letter Carriers Association (NRLCA) bargaining unit. One of the membership benefits she signed up for, on January 28, 1997, was a long-term disability policy underwritten by Hartford but arranged for and administered by NRLCA. In order to participate in the plan, she had to authorize USPS to make deductions from her wages and to release information so she could be enrolled in the plan.

The policy language

The plan terms stated that benefit became payable if she became totally disabled while insured under the plan, remained totally disabled throughout the elimination period, then remained totally disabled beyond the elimination period. She also had to have remained under the regular care of a physician during the elimination period and be able to submit proof of her loss satisfactory to Hartford.

The plan described “Totally Disabled” during the first 24 months and the elimination period as being unable to perform the essential duties of her occupation which resulted in her earning less than 20% of her predisability earnings. In the Plan, total disability could be caused by accidental bodily injury, sickness, mental illness, substance abuse or pregnancy during this time span. Graham claimed bodily injury as the basis for her claim.

Medical history

On February 7, 1994 Graham twisted her knee while delivering mail. She went to Dr. Jeffrey Emel of the Eastern Oklahoma Orthopedic Center. The following month she injured her knee again which resulted in the need for surgery in July.

Graham underwent another procedure in March 1997. At this time, a member of the orthopedic center submitted a letter to the U.S. Dept. of Labor’s Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs (OWCP) advising them of Graham’s need to be moved into a sedentary position that would keep her off of her feet a majority of the time. The letter recommended that she be permanently removed from mail carrying duties. The USPS responded by moving her into the Modified Rural Carrier position.

Graham then injured her left foot and ankle at home on October 25, 1998. She went to Dr. Emel a month later and found that she was healing well, but Graham continued to report pain in her knee and ankle throughout 1999 and early 2000. She started receiving corticosteroid and Synvisc injections to her kneed in November and December of 1999, which the records suggest removed the swelling in her knee and decreased her pain significantly.

Her injured ankle began flaring up again in August 1999. If she failed to take her Vioxx subscription, the ankle became even more symptomatic. Finally when the pain had not resolved itself by January 11, 2000, her doctor ordered an MRI. The MRI revealed a ganglion cyst. The cyst was removed in late February. Her surgeon found her progress was excellent in his March 21 follow-up evaluation and noted that she should be able to return to work within weeks.

Graham applied for a leave of absence on July 17, 2000. The paperwork for her leave indicated that she was suffering from “ankle osteophytes, bone cyst, osteoarthritis knees and ankles.”

Hartford’s administrative record included Graham’s March 21, 2000 post-surgery exam. Hartford also collected additional records from her physicians during the elimination period and shortly thereafter.

On July 25, 2000 Graham applied for disability retirement with the USPS. Dr. Emel supported her application. His July 26, 2000 report to OWCP noted that osteoarthritis involved both knees and ankles. He also noted that Graham was experiencing irritation in her knee because her ankle surgery had “caused her to have to bear more weight” on her knee. Graham received an injection to the knee that was most effected.

Within two days of the initial injection, her ankle was swelling, and another injection was given. At this point, Graham applied for disability benefits under her HRLCA plan. Hartford asked USPS to provide a Physical Demands Assessment for Graham’s position as a modified rural carrier. The human resource specialist returned the form stating that sitting for eight hours with intermittent standing for two hours, with rest, and walking for two hours, with rest, was normative for the position.

The August 10 follow-up exam showed some improvement in Graham’s ankle and knee. Continued injections of Synvisc were recommended, which were administered on August 30, September 7, and September 15. On October 13, Emel reported to OWCP that the injections were only helping minimally and voiced concern because the last injection had sparked a reaction. On November 10, Emel still didn’t recommend returning to work, though a November 15 x-ray “looked pretty good.”

Hartford asked Emel to complete a physical capacities evaluation form.

Emel’s December 5 notes suggested that Graham was receiving “good relief” with her left knee pain, but that her ankle was not responding as well. On the 12th, Emel reported that her right knee was still giving her problems, but that it had calmed down. He felt she was “still temporarily totally disabled.” After this visit, Emel sent his evaluation to Hartford. The December 15 document states that Graham could only sit for two hours a day, and drive for one hour a day. He felt she could only be expected to work three hours per day in her present condition.

Hartford denies the claim

Dr. Emel completed another form on December 28, 2000 indicating that Graham could work up to four hours daily. On January 8, 2001, Emel concluded that Graham had degenerative joint disease in her right knee. In response to Hartford’s request for his opinion on how Graham’s knee and ankle problems could prevent her from sitting, he responded that they wouldn’t. It was based on this reply that Hartford denied Graham’s claim for benefits on February 28, 2001.

Graham appealed on April 9. She included a March 9 letter from Emel that reported the findings of her most recent MRI. The letter explained that the results explained why prolonged sitting caused her so much pain and discomfort, and why her ability to drive to work was now affected. Hartford denied the appeal because her sedentary position was flexible enough to allow her to stand or walk around when she needed relief.

She appealed again on September 26, 2001. She asked Hartford to review all of the information she had provided. She also claimed that her injuries were causing problems with her sleep. Hartford denied again, because she had not provided medical evidence to support the sleep disorder and the prior records did not substantiate her claims of severe pain. She appealed again on February 21, 2003. This time Hartford denied her appeal because she had exhausted the plan’s administrative remedies.

She brought suit against Hartford. On April 22, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled that Hartford’s decision had been arbitrary and capricious and sent her case back to Hartford for a full and fair determination of her claim. Hartford then retained a board certified orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Stephen A. Sliver, to examine Graham’s medical records so the insurance company could determine what her functional limitations were during the elimination period between July 16 and October 14, 2000.

After speaking with Emel, Silver understood that Graham could sit for unlimited periods of time, but could only stand or walk for 15 minutes. In his opinion, Graham had been capable of sedentary work during the elimination period and continued to have this capacity. Hartford asked is this information applied to the elimination period, now almost eight years past. Silver couldn’t be sure, so he contacted Emel again. Silver says that Emel responded that even though Graham was 50 pounds heavier at that time, that he felt her “restrictions would probably be the same.” But Silver stated that Emel didn’t elaborate.

Then Hartford asked Silver if Emel agreed that during the elimination period, Graham would have been able to sit for most of an eight hour day? Silver said yes. And finally Hartford asked Silver to clarify his conclusion that Graham could walk up to 15-20 minutes a day. He cited Emel as saying that Graham could work up to eight hours a day and could stand/walk for 15-30 minutes three to four times daily. Silver agreed with Emel.

Based on this information, Hartford denied Graham’s long-term disability benefits claim on July 24, 2008. In their denial the made it clear that they had considered two additional letters received from Emel in August 2002 and January 2004 which explained why Graham was not capable of doing sedentary work.

Graham brought suit a second time, seeking to recover the benefits due her a participant in NRLCA’s plan. She also wanted her rights enforced and her rights to future benefits clarified. She also brought action under a state law covering breach of an insurance contract and bad faith. The court determined that these rights were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). It also determined that Graham did not have a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. District Court affirmed Hartford’s denial of long-term disability benefits.

This is the background behind Graham’s appeal

First, the court considered Graham’s claim that her NRLCA plan was a government plan and exempt from ERISA jurisdiction. In order to be exempt, the NRLCA plan had to be established for maintained by a governmental entity. The facts were clear in this case. NRLCA entered its contract with Hartford without connection to the USPS. The fact that the USPS did not contribute to the plan confirmed the lack of government jurisdiction over the plan.

Second, the court considered Graham’s claim that she was wrongfully denied a jury trial on her claim. The basis upon which a Seventh Amendment right to jury trial is based on whether a case would have been tried before a jury in 18th century England or would have been heard in a court of equity or admiralty. In the 18th century, this type of case would have required an equitable/restitutionary remedy, not a legal/compensatory one. They held firm to their opinion that ERISA is based on common trust law principles, thus meaning that jury trials are not a right.

Third the court looked at the accusation that Hartford’s denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious. The Court found that Hartford had used a reasoned basis for their denial. Dr. Emel’s reports were at times in agreement with Silver’s conclusions. They did not provide definitive proof that Graham was unable to perform her sedentary job during the elimination period. On this basis, the Court found Silver’s independent review of the administrative record reliable.

The Court did consider whether Hartford should have given more weight to the documents surrounding her disability retirement. In reviewing these documents, they found the information failed to show what evidence the Civil Service Retirement System used or standards applied to reach the conclusion that Graham was unable to perform the duties of her sedentary job. As a result, the Court found that Hartford had a reasonable basis for not considering Graham’s qualification for disability retirement in its decision.

The U.S. District Court of Appeals upheld the Northern District of Oklahoma decision to affirm Hartford’s denial of Graham’s disability benefits.

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

Policy Holder Rating

1.5 out of 5
Read 71 reviews
0%would recommend
Timely Payments
1.9out of 5
Handling Claim
1.9out of 5
Customer Service
1.8out of 5
1.8out of 5
1.9out of 5
Showing 8 of 71 Reviews

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 >
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.


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 >

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 >

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 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 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 >
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 more >


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 >
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 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
Showing 8 of 64 Answered Questions

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 >

Q: Can a disability company record my phone calls?

Answered on November 23rd 2023 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Kansas bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any private conversation without the consent of ... Read More >

Q: My employer terminated me 11/14/23 while my LTD claim is being appealed by the Hartford. Does my appeals process get terminated as well?

Answered on November 20th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Mark:Your termination of employment in the facts you describe has no impact on your Hartford claim. Be ver... Read More >
Helpful Videos
Showing 12 of 861 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
Showing 8 of 329 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
Showing 8 of 369 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
Showing 8 of 764 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.