Kentucky Woman Wins Lawsuit Against Mutual Of Omaha Insurance

Claiming that her long term disability benefits were denied improperly under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and 29 U.S.C.§ 1001, et. seq., Nancy C. and her Kentucky disability lawyer filed a disability lawsuit against her employer and disability insurer alleging that the denial of her long-term disability benefits by the insurer was “arbitrary and capricious” and constituted a “breach of fiduciary duty and/or bad faith” on the part of the defendants.

History of the Claim

Employed as a Kentucky Home Care Case Manager/Consumer Directed Options Support Broker for the Paducah Area Development District, Nancy C. made a Mutual of Omaha application for disability benefits due to her inability to work as the result of “severe abdominal pain, fatigue, malaise.” She reported that these symptoms first appeared in December of 2004, but she continued working. However, by October 22, 2009, she could no longer function in her job and resigned her position.

Mutual of Omaha Disregards Claimant’s Dependence upon Medications to Work

Upon the collection of Nancy C.’s medical records, the insurer learned that was diagnosed with abdominal pain, portal vein thrombosis and degenerative joint disease of the knees and that she had been treated with anti-coagulation therapy as well as receiving intermittent treatment of venipuncture blood draws. In addition, as a result of her thrombosis, Nancy C. was found to have “hepatocellular disease with diffuse fatty infiltration in the liver, esophageal varices (dilated veins), splenomegaly (enlarged spleen), and ileus,” according to a CT scan performed on January 21, 2010. Prior to her resignation in October, 2009, Nancy C. paid numerous visits to her physician noting a plethora of symptoms that included shortness of breath, swelling of lower extremities, abdominal pain, fever, chills, pain, nausea, and visual disturbances. With an increase in her medications, Nancy C. continued to work, though her doctor reported that her prognosis for improvement was not optimistic. Her return to work, according to her treating physician was “comprised solely of medicine management” and would require her to cease driving as long as she continued to take her prescribed narcotics.

On March 10, 2010 Carpenter’s long term disability claim was denied by Mutual of Omaha, who stated that the medical documentation available on Nancy C.”does not appear to support restrictions and limitations to preclude sitting 6 hours out of an 8-hour day with ability to occasionally make position changes or occasionally lift up to 10 pounds.” Thus, the insurer determined that Nancy C. could perform the material duties of her regular occupation and thus, did not qualify for long term disability benefits. As expected, Nancy C. appealed the decision, supplemented her medical records to the insurer, and got another opinion which determined that Nancy C.”would benefit from further expertise.”

Mutual of Omaha upheld its denial of Nancy C.’s benefits stating that she “has had the abdominal distention and portal vein thrombosis conditions for some time and that they are established problems, noted to be ‘stable and improved.'”  Using the standard dictated by ERISA that the Court must look at a claim of contested benefits in light of the “information actually considered by the administrator” of a claim. Quoting case law to justify its consideration, the Court applied the “arbitrary and capricious standard of review” to Nancy C.’s issue. In their complaint and brief, Nancy C. and her attorney alleged that the insurer denied Nancy C.’s claim without giving proper consideration to her medical records or her receipt of Social Security Disability Benefits.

Court Determines that Mutual of Omaha Had a Conflict of Interest in this Case

According to the Court’s memorandum on this case, even though neither party brought up the topic of the insurer having a conflict of interest, the Court felt that it should point out that this was a consideration as the insurer is both the payor and the reviewer of Nancy C.’s claim and that that should be considered in the review of her case. The Court found that the insurer did indeed act arbitrarily and capriciously in one respect in that Nancy C. was required to drive to eight different counties in Western Kentucky to fulfill the material functions of her job when her physician clearly stated that she should not be driving.  The Court determined that the insurer’s “minimal analysis focused on the symptoms [Nancy C.] does not exhibit, such as abnormal bleeding or poorly controlled blood pressure, instead of focusing on the symptoms she does exhibit and then analyzing how these symptoms would not prevent her from performing the material duties of her occupation” was a factor here. In addition, the Court noted that the insurer disregarded the opinion of her treating physician and his determination of Nancy C.’s “limitations and restrictions but did not expressly explain why it did so.” The Court also found fault with the insurer’s reliance upon the opinion of nurse reviewers, the performance of a file-only review, and the fact that more weight was given to the review of her file than to her treating physician’s medical evaluation of his patient

Quoting several cases which pointed to the insurer’s lack of basing its evaluation of Nancy C.’s claim in a reasonable fashion, the Court ruled that Mutual of Omaha did act arbitrarily and capriciously when it decided to deny her claim for long term disability benefits. The Court further opined that it was “troubled” by the insurer’s “determination that the available medical documentation did not support [Nancy C.’s] reported restrictions when it never had a physician examine her or provide a full analysis of her claim.” And, the Court further admonished the insurer that it believed that the denial of Nancy C.’s claim “was not the result of a deliberate principled reasoning process and was not supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court did state that it didn’t believe that the record associated with this case automatically entitles Nancy C. to receive long term disability benefits and thus, remanded the claim back to the defendant to conduct a full and fair review of her case.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

Leave a comment or ask us a question

There are 3 comments

  • Clemente,

    Does your dad have any documentation for the policy? If it was a 10 year policy there stands the likely chance that by 2006 the policy ended and there may be no recourse to recover. Please feel free to have him contact our office to discuss if there is something we may be able to do to assist.

    Stephen JessupNov 6, 2015  #3

  • My Dad just want his money that he has paid so that he can pay for his funeral & reopening of his grave. He just want a quick ceremony. My mom had to be put into freezer until plot was paid. My dad doesn’t want that.

    Clemente RNov 4, 2015  #2

  • My Dad signed up for life insurance back in 1996 for a 10 yr contract for the face value of $10 thousand. Now that he wants to pull out his $10 thousand, Plus interest occurred. Now they have been stipulating that no such contract exist. Insurance is Mutual of omaha.

    Clemente RNov 4, 2015  #1

FAQ

Do you help Mutual Of Omaha claimants nationwide?

We represent Mutual Of Omaha 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 Mutual Of Omaha disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Mutual Of Omaha. 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 Mutual Of Omaha.

How do you help Mutual Of Omaha claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Mutual Of Omaha 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 Mutual Of Omaha:

  • 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.

Reviews   *****

Marna L. (Tennessee)

When the letter arrived from the insurance company that they would no longer be making payments to my disabled spouse our world came to a stop. This is a devastating moment. Rather shocking since we had complied with all the requirements. Shortly, thereafter I started researching to find the best legal firm to represent my spouse. After reading the numerous ads for legal firms I came across Dell & Schaefer. Read the material, listened to the you tube and read the booklet. The process was fast once I place the call.

Attorney Jay Symonds returned my call. He was amazing and talked me through the process. He went through the details as to what would be needed several times. He has patience which is needed when dealing with people under stress. Mr. Symonds was open to different types of communication and at odd times of the week and day. He was understanding of my time as a full time caregiver. Through the process Mr. Symonds and his staff stayed in contact with me. End Result: My spouses insurance was reinstated. We are very grateful to Jay Symonds and his team.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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