GIC Vice President With Anxiety and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Wins New York MassMutual Long-Term Disability Insurance Appeal

MassMutual terminated our client’s disability benefits the moment it learned he had returned to work — without ever analyzing whether the new role matched the demands of his prior occupation. Our client, a New York-based Vice President in real estate investments for GIC, had been forced to stop working due to severe generalized anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, cervical radiculopathy, and additional conditions including chronic headaches, back pain, and sleep apnea. When he later accepted a carefully structured position at a different firm — one built around his documented restrictions — MassMutual treated it as proof he was no longer disabled.

We have handled hundreds of MassMutual disability insurance claims, and this kind of shortcut is a pattern we see repeatedly: an insurer spots a return to work, runs a surface-level job title comparison, and declares the claimant recovered — without examining whether the two roles actually require the same physical and cognitive demands. Attorney Rachel Alters assembled a comprehensive appeal that dismantled every assumption MassMutual relied on, and MassMutual reversed its decision in full.

This case is worth understanding for anyone whose disability insurance company has used a return to work — or the possibility of one — to justify cutting off benefits. If MassMutual or any other disability insurance company has terminated or denied your claim, speak with one of our long-term disability insurance lawyers for a free consultation. We represent claimants nationwide, and we do not charge a fee unless your benefits are paid.

Table of contents

• Why this case matters for every MassMutual claimant
• A high-level career derailed by anxiety, depression, and chronic pain
• MassMutual’s denial: a superficial job comparison built on flawed assumptions
• The appeal: exposing the gap between job titles and job demands
• MassMutual reverses its decision and reinstates partial disability benefits
• Denied by MassMutual after returning to work? We can help

Why This Case Matters for Every MassMutual Claimant

Returning to work in an accommodated role does not disqualify you from partial disability benefits. One of the most common questions we hear is: what happens if I go back to work while receiving disability benefits? Many disability insurance policies — including MassMutual policies — contain partial disability provisions designed for exactly this situation: a claimant who can work in a reduced capacity but cannot return to the full scope of their prior occupation. MassMutual treated our client’s return to work as the end of his disability. It was not. A partial disability benefit exists so that claimants can remain productive without forfeiting the benefits they are owed.

A job title comparison is not an occupational analysis. MassMutual concluded the new position was “substantially similar” to the old one based largely on the fact that both roles were in real estate investment. The insurer never examined the physical and cognitive demands unique to each role — particularly the sustained typing, complex financial modeling, and 60-plus-hour weeks that defined the GIC position. When an insurer compares two jobs, what matters is not the title or the industry. What matters is what the person actually has to do, hour by hour, and whether their restrictions allow them to do it.

Specific, measurable physician restrictions carry more weight than general statements. Our client’s treating physicians imposed a concrete 5-to-10-minute typing restriction, and his neurologist documented significantly impaired dexterity in both upper extremities. These are the kinds of well-documented, quantified limitations that make it difficult for an insurer to argue a claimant can perform heavy keyboarding duties. Claimants should work with their providers to document restrictions in precise, functional terms rather than relying on broad limitation statements.

Income loss documentation can independently establish eligibility for partial disability. Under our client’s policy, a loss of income of at least 15% of pre-disability earnings — directly related to the disability — triggers partial disability eligibility. His income dropped from $750,000 at GIC to $275,000 at the new firm, a loss exceeding 63%. That number, standing alone, satisfied the policy threshold and eliminated MassMutual’s speculation that future bonus payments might close the gap.

An insurer’s failure to contact the former employer is an attack point on appeal. MassMutual never reached out to GIC to verify the actual hours, travel demands, or extent of daily computer use required in our client’s former role. A letter from GIC’s Head of Human Resources revealed details MassMutual either did not know or chose not to investigate — details that directly contradicted every assumption underlying the denial.

A High-Level Career Derailed by Anxiety, Depression, and Chronic Pain

Our client worked as a Vice President for GIC (New York) Inc., a global real estate investment firm. His role required complex investment modeling, high-level reporting, continuous computer use exceeding 10 hours per day, frequent international travel, and direct managerial oversight. According to GIC’s Head of Human Resources, he routinely worked more than 60 hours per week, often holding meetings early in the morning and late at night to coordinate across international time zones. This was a demanding, high-stakes position that required sustained cognitive focus and fine motor endurance.

Beginning in late 2022, our client developed bilateral hand pain that worsened with typing — a critical function of his role. He was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, a compression neuropathy of the median nerve at the wrist that causes pain, numbness, and weakness in the hands. Despite undergoing bilateral carpal tunnel release surgeries in 2023, his symptoms recurred. His treating orthopedist and neurologist both documented persistent hand weakness, burning pain, and stiffness that prohibited sustained keyboarding.

The Psychiatric Crisis

Simultaneously, our client’s mental health deteriorated. Workplace stress, a transatlantic relocation, and marital breakdown triggered escalating anxiety and depression. His treating psychiatrist diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. He experienced intrusive thoughts, executive dysfunction, disrupted sleep, suicidal ideation, and an inability to sustain high-level cognitive functions. His Zoloft dosage was increased repeatedly — from 25 mg to 150 mg — over the course of several months.

The crisis reached its peak when he was psychiatrically hospitalized for suicidal ideation. Following discharge, he resigned from GIC and filed a claim for disability benefits with MassMutual. The insurer approved the claim, recognizing that the combination of severe psychiatric impairments and bilateral upper extremity dysfunction rendered him unable to perform the material duties of his occupation.

Cervical Radiculopathy and Additional Conditions

Our client’s condition extended well beyond his hands and his mental health. A neurological evaluation confirmed cervical radiculopathy — a condition in which a compressed or irritated nerve root in the cervical spine causes pain, numbness, and weakness that radiates into the arms and hands. EMG testing — a diagnostic study that measures electrical activity in nerves and muscles — revealed electrophysiologic evidence of right C5/6 and C6/7 involvement. He also suffered from multiple additional conditions:

• Chronic migraines occurring approximately 15 times per month, treated with Botox injections
• Chronic low back pain
• Severe obstructive sleep apnea confirmed by a home sleep study
• Suspected fibromyalgia

He underwent medial branch nerve blocks (targeted injections to numb specific spinal nerves and diagnose the source of neck pain), cervical epidural injections, physical therapy, chiropractic care, and acupuncture — none of which resolved his symptoms.

MassMutual’s Denial: A Superficial Job Comparison Built on Flawed Assumptions

MassMutual paid total disability benefits — payable under the policy when the insured cannot perform the main duties of their occupation and is not working — through the end of 2024. When our client accepted a new position as Managing Director at Lodge Quai Advisors Corp. at the start of the following year, MassMutual’s Investigative Consultant, Julie Temlak, learned of the return to work during a routine interview. The insurer moved quickly — not to analyze whether the new role matched the demands of the former one, but to terminate benefits.

The Flawed Occupational Comparison

MassMutual’s Vocational Rehabilitation Consultant, Susan Legassie, contacted Lodge Quai and compared the new position against the GIC role. She concluded the two occupations “appear to be very similar, are in the same industry, have close to the same job duties, but slightly different job demands.” Based on this assessment, MassMutual determined our client no longer met the definition of Total or Partial Disability. The denial letter stated plainly that our client “is performing or capable of performing all of the main duties of his Occupation and is doing so in his new role on a full-time basis.”

The problems with this analysis were fundamental. If you have been denied partial disability benefits by MassMutual or another carrier after returning to work, this is a pattern worth understanding. MassMutual’s comparison focused on whether the same general categories of duties appeared on both job descriptions. It did not examine the physical and functional demands of those duties — specifically, how much typing, mouse use, and sustained fine motor activity each role required. For a claimant whose primary physical restrictions involved a 5-to-10-minute typing limitation and significantly impaired bilateral hand dexterity, this omission was not a minor oversight. It was the entire question.

What MassMutual Failed to Investigate

Equally damaging was what MassMutual did not do. The insurer never contacted GIC to verify the actual hours worked, the extent of daily computer use, the frequency of international travel, or the true scope of the Vice President role. Instead, MassMutual relied on a generic occupational description stating our client worked 40 hours per week in a sedentary position with travel once every six months. This bore no resemblance to the reality of the role — a fact that became clear only when we obtained the evidence MassMutual should have gathered itself.

MassMutual also demanded repayment of $15,000 in benefits it claimed were overpaid for the first month after our client’s return to work, threatening to report the amount as taxable income if not returned by year’s end.

The Appeal: Exposing the Gap Between Job Titles and Job Demands

Attorney Rachel Alters built an appeal — similar to one we filed on behalf of an anesthesiologist whose MassMutual claim was initially mishandled — that attacked every pillar of the denial. The appeal demonstrated three things MassMutual’s analysis had failed to establish: that the two roles were functionally equivalent, that our client could perform the duties of his former occupation, and that he had no qualifying loss of income. Each of these conclusions was wrong — and the evidence proved it.

The Vocational Evaluation: Two Different Jobs Under Similar Titles

We retained a certified rehabilitation counselor to conduct an independent vocational evaluation comparing the two positions. The evaluator determined unequivocally that the Managing Director role at Lodge Quai was not functionally or occupationally equivalent to the Vice President position at GIC.

The GIC role most closely aligned with the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles classification for Real Estate Acquisitions Manager — a role requiring complex investment modeling, high-level reporting, continuous computer use, and direct managerial responsibilities. These duties demand sustained cognitive endurance and fine motor function. The Lodge Quai role, by contrast, more closely resembled a Real Estate Broker — a largely consultative, externally focused, and verbal position. Key differences included:

• Computer use: The GIC role required more than 10 hours of daily keyboarding and financial analysis. The Lodge Quai role involved minimal typing or documentation tasks.
• Hours: The GIC role demanded 60-plus hours per week. The Lodge Quai role was capped at 40 hours.
• Duties: The GIC role required building complex financial models — duties that were specifically excluded from the Lodge Quai position. Our client was not required to type, write reports, or perform the sustained fine motor work that defined his former occupation.
• Nature of work: The GIC role was analytical and documentation-intensive. The Lodge Quai role was relationship-driven and conducted primarily by phone.

Despite the similarity in job titles and industry, the material demands of each position differed significantly. That functional distinction was the heart of the case — and MassMutual’s analysis had failed entirely to account for it.

The Employer’s Letter: What MassMutual Never Bothered to Ask

GIC’s Head of Human Resources provided a detailed letter filling in the details MassMutual’s investigation had left blank. Her letter established that our client regularly worked more than 60 hours per week, held meetings across international time zones, traveled every two weeks, and spent more than 10 hours per day using a computer for typing and written communications. She also explained that voice recognition software would not meaningfully reduce the need for intensive keyboard and mouse use due to the company’s global compliance and communication protocols.

Her conclusion was unequivocal: given his current physical impairments, our client would not be able to meet the demands of his former Vice President position.

The Medical Evidence: Ongoing Restrictions MassMutual Ignored

The medical record told a consistent story that MassMutual chose not to hear. Two Attending Physician Statements — standardized forms in which a treating doctor documents a patient’s diagnosis, functional restrictions, and limitations — completed during the appeal period documented the severity of our client’s ongoing impairments:

• Orthopedic assessment: Our client’s treating orthopedist confirmed ongoing bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome with a strict 5-to-10-minute typing restriction. Stiffness in both hands continued to prohibit him from performing his former job duties, which involved sustained keyboarding.
• Neurological assessment: Our client’s treating neurologist diagnosed cervical radiculopathy and bilateral hand numbness with significantly impaired dexterity and function in both upper extremities. She confirmed that these conditions severely restricted sustained manipulative tasks such as typing, mouse use, and handwriting.

Physical therapy notes documented persistent weakness in bilateral hands with long rest breaks required between hand exercises due to muscle fatigue. Despite months of targeted therapy, chiropractic care, medial branch nerve blocks, and cervical epidural injections, his symptoms remained.

His psychiatric treatment also continued without resolution. Records from his psychiatrist documented persistent cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, difficulty with executive functioning, and limited capacity for sustained concentration — particularly in cognitively demanding or physically repetitive tasks. He remained on Zoloft and Trazodone with bi-weekly therapy sessions.

Critically, there was no documented medical improvement since MassMutual last approved benefits. The insurer terminated benefits based not on any change in our client’s medical condition, but solely on the fact that he had accepted a new job. This is a pattern we have seen in other cases, including one in which MassMutual was required to approve disability benefits for an oncologist after a similar challenge, and another where benefits were reinstated for an attorney with wrist injuries whose insurer failed to properly assess ongoing upper extremity restrictions.

The Income Loss: A 63% Drop That Speaks for Itself

Under our client’s MassMutual policy, partial disability benefits are payable when the insured has a reduced capacity to perform their occupation and a loss of income of at least 15% of pre-disability income that is directly related to the disability. A partial disability benefit is a provision found in many individual disability insurance policies — it allows claimants who can work in a reduced capacity to receive benefits proportional to their income loss, rather than requiring total inability to work. We have won residual and partial disability benefits for other professionals facing similar circumstances, and this provision was the key to our client’s case. His annual compensation at GIC was $750,000. His salary at Lodge Quai was $275,000 with no expected bonuses or performance incentives. That is a loss of income exceeding 63% — more than four times the policy threshold.

MassMutual’s denial letter had speculated that future incentive compensation from Lodge Quai — including SEP IRA contributions, health insurance reimbursement, and profit share bonuses — might eliminate the income loss. The appeal addressed each of these directly. Lodge Quai confirmed that no additional bonuses were expected. And upon reinstatement, MassMutual itself determined that SEP IRA contributions and health insurance reimbursement were not considered earned income under the policy. The speculation that had partly supported the denial was refuted by MassMutual’s own subsequent analysis.

MassMutual Reverses Its Decision and Reinstates Partial Disability Benefits

MassMutual reversed its decision and reinstated our client’s disability benefits retroactive to the date of termination. The insurer paid $181,546.67 in back benefits covering ten months — $154,050 under the Extended Partial Disability Benefits Rider and $27,496.67 under the Group Supplement Disability Benefits Rider. MassMutual also applied a Cost of Living adjustment, increasing the monthly benefit, and confirmed that future premiums would be waived while our client remained disabled.

The $15,000 overpayment demand was rescinded. MassMutual’s claim examiner, Julie Thibeault, confirmed the reinstatement and acknowledged that SEP IRA contributions and health insurance reimbursement did not constitute earned income under the policy — a determination that aligned precisely with what attorney Alters had argued in the appeal.

This case is a reminder that a return to work — when it is structured around documented medical restrictions and results in a significant income loss — is exactly the scenario that partial disability provisions are designed to address. An insurer cannot terminate benefits simply because a claimant is working. It must analyze the specific demands of each role, compare them to the claimant’s documented restrictions, and determine whether a qualifying loss of income exists. MassMutual failed to do any of that. We made sure the record showed it.

Denied by MassMutual After Returning to Work? We Can Help

If MassMutual or any other disability insurance company has terminated or denied your benefits after you returned to work — or for any other reason — we want to hear from you. We have seen this tactic from virtually every major carrier, and we know how to respond. As attorney Rachel Alters demonstrated in this case, a well-documented appeal built on vocational evidence, employer verification, and physician restrictions can dismantle even the most confident denial.

Dell Disability Lawyers was established in 1979, has helped tens of thousands of disability insurance claimants, and has recovered more than $2 billion in benefits for our clients. We represent claimants in every state, and we do not charge a fee unless your benefits are paid. Speak with one of our disability insurance attorneys today for a free consultation — and understand that if your claim involves an appeal deadline, the time to act is now.