CUNA Mutual terminates disability benefits to woman suffering from depression and lyme disease
A Federal Appellate Court upheld an insurance company’s decision to terminate the long-term disability benefits of a woman who suffered from recurrent major depression. Although the woman claimed to now be suffering from Lyme disease, CUNA Mutual discontinued her benefits after two years due to the policy’s 24 month mental illness limitation. The Court agreed with CUNA Mutual that there was insufficient evidence to support her claim of disability due to Lyme disease. Let’s take a closer look to understand why the Court sided with CUNA Mutual.
Barbara Gent was the Vice President of Operations at Westerly Community Credit Union. A benefit of her employment was Credit Union’s long-term disability insurance plan. The plan’s benefits were paid under a long-term disability insurance policy issued by CUNA. CUNA also administered this ERISA-governed plan.
In March 2000, work-related stress led Gent is to see a therapist. There she expressed fears that the new president of her job was trying to take responsibilities away from her and ultimately fire her. Gent then met with her psychiatrist, Dr. A.H. Parmentier where she complained of depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, poor energy, difficulty focusing, crying spells and the inability to think clearly. Dr. Parmentier diagnosed Gent with recurrent major depression and excused her from work.
In June 2000, Gent submitted a claim for long-term benefits under her disability policy. Dr. Paramentier’s required attending physician statement listed Gent’s diagnosis as recurrent major depressive disorder, and he indicated that Gent had a “Class 4” mental impairment, which meant that she was “unable to engage in stress situations or engage in interpersonal relations.” Dr. Parmentier did not mention any cardiac or physical impairments.
In August 2000, CUNA approved Gent’s claim for disability benefits. In the approval letter, CUNA prominently reminded Gent that her disability policy contained a mental illness limitation. The limitation stated that an insured who is disabled due to a mental illness may receive only a maximum of two years of disability benefits. It is very common for ERISA governed disability insurance policies to have a two years limitation for mental illness.
In April 2002, CUNA informed Gent that because of her mental illness limitation, her benefits would end in July 2002. After her benefits ended, Gent appealed claiming that the two year limitation did not apply because her disability now stemmed from a physical condition, Lyme disease. Gent alleged that she was bitten by a tick in 2001. CUNA asked Dr. Scott Yarosh, a psychiatrist, to review Gent’s medical records, and he concluded that the medical records do not document specific criteria to suggest that there were other disabling medical conditions. CUNA denied Gent’s appeal.
From 2002 through 2006, Gent appealed five more times where she sent medical opinions from various doctors who each came to different conclusions. Some found that Gent was disabled by Lyme disease; others said that if she was disabled, it was due to a depressive disorder. CUNA rejected all the appeals. In June 2006, Gent’s disability attorney filed an ERISA lawsuit in the Massachusetts Federal District Court. The district court agreed with CUNA and Gent’s Massachusetts disability lawyer filed an appeal with the Appellate Court.
The United States Court of Appeals Analysis:
The First Circuit Court of Appeals, using the preponderance of the evidence standard, found that CUNA’s evidence was much stronger than Gent’s evidence, and thus ruled that CUNA was correct in discontinuing Gent’s coverage.
The Court noted that while Lyme disease can be diagnosed using clinical evidence such as symptoms, objective physical findings such as a rash, facial palsy, or arthritis, and a history of possible exposure to infected ticks, it is also diagnosed using blood tests which measure the presence of Lyme antibodies in the patient’s blood. During such tests, doctors should first administer an “ELISA or IFA” test. If the ELISA is positive, doctors then administer a “Western blot test.” This test will typically be positive only if a patient has Lyme disease. The Court noted that the CDC has stated that, “(i)f the Western blot is negative, it suggests that the first test was a false positive, which can occur for several reasons.”
Although Gent reported an insect bite to one of her physicians in June 2001, and although she complained to various doctors of symptoms similar to those found with Lyme disease (Gent complained of fatigue, weakness, and achy joints), the Court noted that the Western blot test was negative for Lyme disease, as was a cerebro-spinal fluid test, which revealed no antibodies associated with the disease. The Court was also not persuaded by the four doctors that diagnosed Gent with Lyme disease. The Court noted that these doctors focused primarily on the clinical symptoms manifested by Gent. The Court noted that five other doctors involved in the case concluded that Gent did not have Lyme disease. These doctors focused largely on the laboratory data and clinical evidence.
Taking all the evidence into account, the Court found that CUNA’s argument was the better-supported position, and ruled that CUNA was correct in discontinuing coverage. The Court stated that “while one can reasonably interpret the clinical and neuropsychological evidence to either support or undermine a Lyme disease diagnosis, the laboratory data lines up almost uniformly against such a diagnosis.” Lastly, the court pointed out, that Gent’s history of depression makes the Lyme disease diagnosis more susceptible to questioning due to the overlapping of symptoms between the two disorders.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Attorney Alexander Palamara of Dell Disability Lawyers gets LTD Benefits Reinstated for former Walmart Manager who is now found disabled from Any Occupation
NFL Disability Review Board Ignores Evidence of Disability and Appeal Court Reverses Lower Court Decision
California Federal Judge Orders Standard Insurance Company to Pay Disability Benefits to Teacher with Lyme Disease
Reviews from Our Clients
Very satisfied with the work of this team. Took well care of my case and took all the necessary time to be responsive and attentive when I had questions. Guided me through recovery and returning to normalcy. All thanks to Jason & Tabitha, thank you!
I’m extremely satisfied with the experience I have had with this firm from day one. The lawyer who has handled my case, Alex, is very efficient and attentive to all my questions and concerns. They are always aware of how my case has gone and they care about my health. I feel optimistic with them because they are very attentive during the process of my claim. I would not hesitate to recommend families and friends if in any situation they need their services. Kathleen as well has been very well and assisted me with this case. I highly appreciate everything they have done for me.
It’s unfortunate when disability insurance companies come after older disabled policyholders just to help their bottom line. It can be a living nightmare the damage they can do to a family. Dell Disability Lawyers are polite, understanding and knowledgeable. They call you back and answer any question you have no matter how unimportant it can be. The amount of stress they took off of myself and family was incalculable. I recommend them highly to take care of any disability case whether it be filing for benefits or reversing a claim decision. They are outstanding.
I could not have been happier or more appreciative of the hard work they performed on my behalf. I was well briefed on my case and it was closed in a timely manner with a financially successful resolution.
Mr. Symonds and Sonia as well as everyone else we have worked with throughout this process have been very helpful, professional and caring to our situation. We are very thankful to have this great team on our side.
Without them my LTD company was dropping my plan with me still suffering from my accident, even with doctor’s statements I’m still disabled. The LTD company didn’t want to advance my policy to the next stage of years of pay. Dell Disability Lawyers saved my policy, and helped to enforce the LTD company’s own policy (for its policy holder, me) that I would be covered still under the LTD policy I had paid for at my previous job, when my accident occurred. These lawyers know what they are doing and can help you too. LTD companies will try to drop you when you still need coverage just because they don’t want to pay on your policy anymore. Don’t let them break contract with ya because they are trying to get out of it. Hit em with legal action to ensure the continuation of your policy you paid for. Dell Disability worked very well for me and continue to do so.
I was denied long term disability benefits from The Hartford after being on it for years. I found Dell Disability Lawyers after doing research online. In a matter of days they responded and explained to me everything that would be done. Dell Disability Lawyers were able to settle my suit against The Hartford very quickly and responded to me quickly. I would definitely recommend this team of lawyers for anyone that is fighting for their disability insurance.
I have had nothing but a great experience with Dell Disability Law Firm. Mr. Alex Palamara and his team went above and beyond my expectations. They will respond to emails and phone calls in a timely manner. Thank you once again for taking my case.
This law firm is the best so far. MetLife denied me two times, they appealed two times for me and they won of course. So if you are on disability and want a chance at winning your case use this firm Dell disability lawyers, kind courteous understanding and they get the job done. You won’t be disappointed.