Johnson & Johnson Employee with Depression Denied Disability Benefits After Definition Change

This Johnson & Johnson disability denial lawsuit and its result shows why an experienced disability attorney is often needed prior to a disability claim denial. If the claimant in this case had hired a representative earlier in the case to assist her with her claim and administrative appeals, there is a chance that the court would have had more medical documentation in support of her claim and thus perhaps resulting in a more favorable ruling.

Employee Forced to Leave Work Due to Depression

In February 2008, an employee of Johnson & Johnson was forced to leave work due to depression. She immediately applied for and was approved for Short Term Disability Benefits. As the claim was transitioning from a short-term claim to a long-term claim, Reed Group, the third party administrator of Johnson & Johnson’s disability policies, had the claimant undergo an independent medical examination by a psychologist. After initially being awarded Long Term Disability Benefits, Reed Group denied continued benefits in September of 2008 because the initial reviewing psychologist found that the claimant was exaggerating her symptoms and gave a poor effort throughout testing.

The Claimant filed an administrative appeal. As the appeal was pending, Reed Group had a board certified psychiatrist conduct an independent review. That reviewing physician concluded that the claimant was not able to work in any capacity. In light of this opinion, LTD Benefits were reinstated on October 13, 2008.

In March of 2009, a third evaluation was conducted whereby the doctor concluded that the claimant was not able to return to work in any capacity. The Social Security Administration agreed and awarded disability benefits to the claimant.

Change in Definition of Disability Results in Disability Denial by Reed Group

In the spring of 2009, the definition of disability changed in the policy. The earlier definition of disability stated that the claimant had to be unable to perform her job. The new definition required that she be unable to perform any job in order to qualify for continued disability benefits. It must be noted that the change in definition of disability is very common and found in the great majority of today’s ERISA disability policies.

In light of the higher standard the claimant now needed to meet, Reed Group reinvestigated the claimant’s case. In May of 2009, the claimant was sent to a Psychologist for an independent medical examination. Following this IME, Reed Group terminated the claimant’s continued receipt of benefits. Apparently this psychologist found that the claimant’s subjective complaints could not be objectively verified.

The claimant again appealed. In response to this appeal, Reed Group had the claimant’s file reviewed by an independent reviewing psychologist. Relying on this “independent review”, Reed Group upheld its decision to deny benefits on October 12, 2009.

Two months after the latest denial, the claimant retained counsel to assist her with her final administrative appeal. This focus of the administrative appeal was the initial independent reviews that found that the claimant was not able to work in any capacity. In response to this appeal, Reed Group submitted the entire file to another psychologist for another independent evaluation. Using this review for support, Reed Group again denied the claimant’s claim. Reed Group also stated that the reports the claimant points to in her appeal addressed an earlier time period.

Following this final denial, a lawsuit ensued.

ERISA Disability Lawsuit Filed Against Johnson & Johnson and Reed Group

Without further administrative remedies available, the claimant was forced to file an ERISA lawsuit. Unfortunately for the claimant, the ERISA statutes severely handcuff the Federal Court in ERISA Claims. In fact, even if a federal court believes the decision to deny benefits was wrong, “the ultimate question… is whether reasonable ground supported that decision; in other words, whether Johnson & Johnson’s decision to deny (claimant’s) benefits was arbitrary and capricious.”

The Court found that Johnson & Johnson’s decision to give more weight to the objective data and the “independent” doctors rather than the claimant’s treating doctors was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Similarly, the Court found Johnson & Johnson’s explanation that the supportive reports the claimant pointed to in her final appeal were from a different time period was reasonable.

In the end, the Court found that Johnson & Johnson’s decision to terminate was reasonable and ruled in favor of Johnson & Johnson.

What If…

The facts of this case leave open the question as to how the Court would have ruled if more supportive documentation and objective evidence was presented to the Court by the claimant. Although our firm did not represent the claimant in this case, nor have we had a chance to review all the documentation from the case, the Court’s Order shows that insufficient contrary evidence was presented that could have swayed the Court to have found that Johnson & Johnson’s decision was in fact not reasonable. For instance, if the claimant had an attorney involved sooner other medical examinations, testing, etc., could have been done and presented to combat the “independent” reviews which were paid for by Johnson & Johnson.

If you have a case with similar facts or if you have a claim that is currently under review by a disability insurance company, please contact us so that we may provide you with a complimentary consultation.

Comments (2)

  • Sean: You describe an very unfortunate and complex set of circumstances. I suggest you contact our office and speak with one of the attorneys to discuss the specific questions you have regarding your situation.

    Jay Symonds May 15, 2020  #2

  • On Thanksgiving 2019 I lost my father to cancer, esophageal cancer. I was his caretaker while working for Frito Lay. I took intermittent leave and then I took the last three weeks off completely to care for him as he passed away no problems with my claims through Sedgwick however on December 11 my 23-year-old son died in Oklahoma, my other son is being charged for his murder, I don’t wanna get the details about that however I’ve been on short term disability up until couple weeks ago. Now I’m being processed to long-term disability paperwork and they’re telling me that I’ll probably be denied or lose my job if I don’t have paperwork filled out by 28 May. I don’t have my next appointment with my doctor until June 5, my marriage is also in shambles, I’m trying to rebuild that now so I have anxiety and I’ve experienced a lot of depression in the last five minutes. I’m on the uphill now but I still need work let me know what I need to do. By the way, I live in California – Sacramento to be exact and I’ve been approved for one year of disability insurance to the state of California. They originally shot me down on short term disability and they had me talk to a nurse on the phone which they came up their decision to deny me but they overturned it and excepted it how though I don’t get money from the company I need still need to have my job preserved. I still want to work. I still want to go back. I’m just not ready yet, I’m too anxious, too stressed, too sad, my mind is on my child that’s in court right now in another state. I could lose him to the system when I know that he wasn’t driving the car which created the felony evasion and it’s just I’ll send you the article it’s just a lot I don’t wanna lose him to…

    Sean D. May 15, 2020  #1

Leave a comment or ask us a question

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   *****

Maria K.

It was a great experience I had with the whole team. Whoever I worked with through out the whole process was very responsive, detail and time sensitive. The cost arrangement was discussed up front so I knew exactly what my cost would be. My case was discussed in person, all the documentation I had available, I provided. Some specific statements were requested of me, friends and family. It was reviewed by Dell & Schaefer and it was determined that I had a strong case.

The appeal was submitted before the deadline and I had a copy of it to review. I was very pleased of the whole content of the submission. I read all the strong points of the appeal and I knew at that point that it was a very strong appeal case and one way or another Dell & Schaefer would win the case. It was a matter of principal for me and I feel that I got my point across to my employer. I could’ve waited to go through a trial but I did not because I really did not want to have this issue hanging over me any longer so agreed to settle my case.

They are very detailed, responsive, up-front, they tell you if you have a strong case, tell you the angle that they’ll use to go after your case, get all the appropriate documentation so as to back-up everything they say, they are time sensitive and keep you updated as time goes by. They are a great team! I had my concerns at first because they are not local but they gave me all the time I needed to have any discussions and ask any questions.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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