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 limited to considering only the administrative record that was before the plan administrator. The case of Robert Stallings v. The Procter & Gamble Disability, Committee, et al., is an example of how plaintiffs with cases filed in a District Court that is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit may obtain discovery of evidence outside the administrative record.

Key Take-Aways from the Case:

Summary of the Facts

The case began in 2013 when Defendants (Procter & Gamble) agreed that Plaintiff was “totally disabled” due to his diagnoses of depressive disorder, chronic back pain, and chronic neck pain and awarded him benefits. In 2016, Defendants reviewed the Plaintiff’s medical records and again found him to be totally disabled.

On July 24, 2019, Defendants changed their minds and notified Plaintiff by letter that they no longer found him to be totally disabled, only partially disabled. Therefore, he no longer qualified for Plan disability benefits.

Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. He then filed this ERISA lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division.

In his lawsuit, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants: 1) wrongfully denied him benefits, and 2) breached their fiduciary duty to him. These allegations were based on the two reasons Defendant gave Plaintiff for the denial of benefits:

1) Lack of “objective” medical evidence to support his claim.

2) Plaintiff failed to have a functional capacity evaluation (FCE).

After filing his lawsuit, Plaintiff made a motion for discovery. Discovery is rarely allowed in an ERISA lawsuit for wrongful denial of benefits. Generally, the Court is limited to its review based only on the administrative record that was before the Plan Administrator when the decision was made to deny benefits.

In this case, the District Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery motion for two reasons:

1) Defendants’ denial of benefits was based on procedural irregularities.

2) Defendants had a clear conflict of interest.

In granting the Plaintiff’s discovery motion, the Court held that “limited discovery is needed to ascertain the potential extent of any procedural irregularities and/or a conflict of interest because without such discovery, the ‘administrative record [is] [in]sufficient to permit a fair evaluation of the decision.’”

What is the Standard for Allowing Discovery in ERISA Lawsuits?

Generally, discovery is not allowed in judicial review of an ERISA lawsuit. The Court is limited to the evidence that was before the administrator and does not allow for discovery outside the administrative record.

The Court may allow discovery if the plaintiff demonstrates good cause. Examples of good cause include:

If plaintiffs can demonstrate good cause, their discovery motion will be granted.

Did the Plan Administrator Have a Conflict of Interest?

Defendants conceded they had a conflict of interest since they were both the insurer who paid Plaintiff benefits and the Plan Administrator who determined whether Plaintiff qualified for benefits. But Defendants then argued that they had “taken steps to ensure any conflict of interest does not impact the benefit determination process.”

The Court found that this mere statement was not enough. There was nothing in the record that confirmed that policy was followed in Plaintiff’s case.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s discovery request, finding that “Plaintiff should be allowed to conduct limited discovery to determine whether such policies, procedures, and practices do actually exist and, if so, to what extent, if any, they interfered with the fair review of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits.”

Were There Procedural Irregularities in the Plan Administrator’s Review of Plaintiff’s Claim?

Legal precedent allows for discovery when warranted in ERISA cases “where the plan administrator, in the exercise of its power, acted dishonestly, from improper motive, or failed to use sound judgment in the reaching of its decision.” The Court noted that the existing administrative record showed that:

The Court also granted the motion for discovery on this issue, finding that “the existing evidence raises questions as to whether the Committee used ‘sound judgment’ in their determination.”  

This case was not handled by our office, but it may provide helpful information to claimants as they pursue compensation under their employer’s disability benefits policy. If you need assistance with your claim, no matter what stage you are at with it, contact our disability lawyers at Dell & Schafer for a free consultation.

Questions About Hiring Us

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, 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   *****

Anthony D.

I found Mr. Stephen Jessup of Dell & Schaefer to be friendly, knowledgeable, responsive and unfailingly professional. I received a settlement and everything was completed within the time frame discussed. For these reasons I highly recommend Mr. Jessup for professional services.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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