MetLife denies benefits to stockbroker disabled by depression, yet Pennsylvania Federal Judge awards disability benefits

When the Court sends a claim back to the long-term disability insurance company for another review, it is no guarantee that the insurance company will grant long-term disability benefits, as the case of Cheryl Schwarzwaelder demonstrates. In a recent case against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), the court remanded the case back to Metlife for further review, which resulted in another claim denial and years of further delay. Unfortunately, there are numerous cases against Metlife in which the company has repeatedly ignored the recommendations of a disability claimant’s treating physician. Let’s take a closer look at the long term disability insurance claim of this previously successful Pennsylvania stock broker.

Ms. Schwarzwaelder had been an employee of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and a participant in the company’s long-term disability benefit plan which was administered by MetLife. She’d been an employee for approximately one year as a high-end broker and financial consultant. She managed approximately $400 – 500 Million in assets.

The job was extremely stressful, and Schwarzwaelder began seeing a psychiatrist in the beginning of November 2003. Schwarzwaelder reported that her treating psychiatrist advised her to stop working as a result of her increasing mental health difficulties. She followed this recommendation and applied to MetLife for disability benefits.

Her medical records showed that she had been seeing a psychiatrist every two weeks. The record also included a Beck Depression Inventory, initial psychiatric evaluations, her psychiatrist’s treatment observations and notes, patient health questionnaires and an attending physician statement from March 8, 2004. Schwarzwaelder was diagnosed with severe depression which demonstrated itself in decreased concentration, organizational ability, and memory. Her doctor also noted that her depression affected her ability to “engage in stress situations or engage in interpersonal relationships.” He explored an extensive variety of pharmaceutical mental health treatment plans which included Zoloft, Lexapro, Remeron, Wellbutrin, Xanax, and Ambien.

Schwarzwaelder did receive short-term disability benefits from Merrill Lynch for almost 3 months. Then her claim was referred to a long-term disability claims administrator on February 20, 2004. Six weeks later her claim was denied because she had failed to supply adequate documentation to support that her mental health would prevent her from performing all of the regular duties of her job.

Schwarzwaelder hired a long-term disability attorney, who promptly notified MetLife that she was going to appeal the denial of benefits. As part of the ERISA appeal, her psychiatrist provided a letter. She also underwent a neuropsychological evaluation and testing from another physician. This physician corroborated the opinion of her treating physician, diagnosing her with a severe adjustment disorder. This physician noted that she was “markedly limited in her ability to perform complex cognitive operations.” He correlated her emotional state and identified it as a significant contributor to her inability to function at the high level she had previously been accustomed to.

MetLife sent Schwarzwaelder’s file to a psychiatrist for review. This psychiatrist concluded, in September 2004, that Schwarzwaelder’s records failed to substantiate her inability to work at her own occupation. This physician requested a psychologist perform a paper review of one specific evaluation in her file. The psychologist concluded that the symptoms reported in the evaluation weren’t sufficient to suggest a major depressive disorder and that the reported declining IQ was excessive. The psychologist also concluded that because the testing did not outline specific restrictions/limitations on employment nor preclusion from all work capacity Schwarzwaelder was not disabled.

Based upon these evaluations MetLife upheld its denial of benefits on September 23, 2004. Schwarzwaelder was informed that the “available records submitted for review” did not “substantiate psychiatric functional impairments that would” preclude her from performing her regular job at Merrill Lynch. Schwarzwaelder’s disability attorney filed an ERISA disability lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 15, 2004.

Court’s First Look at MetLife Claim

When the Court first looked at Schwarzwaelder’s claim, it became apparent that MetLife had been inconsistent in answering the question of just what the plan language meant when it said that Schwarzwaelder be “unable to perform all the regular duties” of her job at Merrill Lynch. On the one hand, it appeared that MetLife interpreted the plan to say “one or more” regular duties. At other times, it appeared MetLife interpreted the plan to mean “each and every” regular duty. For this reason the Court sent Schwarzwaelder’s claim back to MetLife on remand. When a court sends a case back for remand, this means that the court is giving the insurance company another chance to review the claim. If the insurance company denies the claim again, then the claimant is usually required to submit another ERISA Appeal and then either re-open or file another lawsuit.

MetLife was given clear instructions to clearly define the plan interpretation that it was applying. MetLife was also instructed to articulate the basis for its denial, with direct reference to Schwarzwaelder’s individual job requirements, if it chose to uphold its denial upon remand.

MetLife Denies Disability Benefits on Remand

MetLife made it clear in its response to the remand it was only requiring Schwarzwaelder to be disabled for any one regular job duty. Accordingly, the disability insurance plan obtained a copy of her job description from Merrill Lynch. It also obtained a file review by another psychologist on May 16, 2007. The psychologist reported that the neurocognitive testing in Schwarzwaelder’s records failed to assess whether or not she was malingering. This physician also concluded that her test scores demonstrated that she retained the cognitive abilities to continue working in her own occupation. Both of her treating physicians disagreed with this physician’s report.

Once again in June 2007, MetLife denied Schwarzwaelder’s long-term disability benefit application. She appealed and submitted further documentation from both of her treating physicians. She also went to see a specialist at George Washington University School of Medicine. This physician also reported that her symptoms were typical of a patient suffering from major depression. He supported the diagnosis of both of her regular treating physicians, and on October 17, 2007 he listed the specific job duties he believed she would be unable to perform.

These additional records were sent for paper review by yet another psychiatrist/neurologist. This physician reported on November 7, 2007, yet once again, there was insufficient objective evidence that Schwarzwaelder suffered from sufficient cognitive dysfunction to not be able to perform her occupational duties. He pointed to the fact that she had never reported suicidal or homicidal intent, delusional thoughts, or hallucinations. He noted that she had never been hospitalized, nor were there any reports that she had been impaired from the activities of daily living. She was not homebound, thus she should be able to perform her job at Merrill Lynch.

Schwarzwaelder’s physicians objected to the conclusions of this report. One of her treating physicians corresponded with MetLife in November and December 2007, and in January 2008.

Ultimately the reports provided by her treating physicians failed to convince MetLife that the paper reviews conducted by their psychiatrists and neurologists were inadequate. She was informed on January 18, 2008 that her medical information still did not support her inability to work in “her own occupation as a financial consultant.”

Disability Attorney Re-Opens Suit Against MetLife and Merrill Lynch

MetLife had the right to interpret the plan language and determine whether or not the claimant had the right to benefits or not. Because of this, ERISA mandated that the Court must evaluate Schwarzwaelder’s claim using the “abuse of discretion” or “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review.

This meant that the Court would have to affirm MetLife’s decision as long as it was reasonable, rational, and in harmony with the language of the plan. Using this measure, The Court could not determine whether or not MetLife’s decision was the correct one. It could only evaluate whether it was reasonable.

MetLife Considers Medical Evidence Selectively

The first thing the Court recognized was the right that MetLife had as the plan administrator to give equal weight to the opinions of physicians it hired to review the medical record. At the same time in Michaels v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., the Court ruled that plan administrators are not free to arbitrarily refuse information provided by a claimant that is reliable. This includes the opinions of a claimant’s treating physicians.

The Court has expressed concern that a plan administrator can deny a claim based on paper review of medical records, especially when the reviewing physician is selective in what information is used in reaching an opinion. The Court has great concern that reviewing physicians can be selective and self-serving in how they use the medical information found in a claimants file. It also is a concern to the Court when paper-review consultants, who have never seen a patient, draw conclusions that are in opposition to those expressed by physicians who have examined a patient and have presented consistent and concurring opinions.

Of great concern to the Court was the fact that MetLife failed to discuss how the job specific disability determinations presented by three physicians who had personal experience with Schwarzwaelder’s condition were negated by the conclusions drawn by its physicians who performed paper reviews, and had never met Schwarzwaelder. There was no conflicting medical evidence to demonstrate that Schwarzwaelder was able to perform at the high stress level of the position she held at Merrill Lynch.

It was also apparent that Merrill Lynch had not applied the “own occupation” standard to the review process. The physicians reviewing her file had often referred to her ability to work in any position, when her claim fell under classification as her “own occupation”, a very stressful job which required keen mental ability. MetLife had an obligation to identify its specific objections to any information within her file that it felt contradicted her claim of disability for mental health issues. It had failed to do so.

MetLife had also rejected information in her file that was self-reported. This wasn’t a new issue with MetLife. The Court had seen it before in Adams. Consistently the physicians who conducted paper reviews of her file ignored any evidence in her doctor’s office notes that could be considered subjective and/or self-reported. And yet the Plan document recognized that Schwarzwaelder would be eligible for long-term disability benefits if she was unable to perform all the regular duties of her job at Merrill Lynch and was under the continuous care of a physician who was treating her within the scope of his/her specialty.

To reject Schwarzwaelder’s treating physician’s notes as self reporting and subjective was an issue addressed in Glenn, as well. The Court found it inconsistent for the plan to state that Schwarzwaelder needed to be under the care of a treating physician, yet when the treating physicians presented their office notes, MetLife treated these physicians as not having a valid opinion because their notes reflected “subjective” information.

MetLife Provides Incomplete Information to Consultants

MetLife failed to provide accurate information to the physicians it hired to review Schwarzwaelder’s claim. The physicians were not provided with an accurate and complete profile of the scope and requirements of her job. None of the opinions presented by those physicians who conducted paper reviews reflected the fact that they had received a complete occupational description. In fact, many of the opinions demonstrated serious misconceptions as to what Schwarzwaelder’s job entailed. This failure violated MetLife’s fiduciary duties under ERISA.

MetLife Continues to Rely on Opinions Already Found Unreasonable by the Court

The Court found that MetLife’s decision continued to rest upon reports that had already caused the Court to send Schwarzwaelder’s claim back to MetLife on remand. Yet MetLife continued to rely on the same reports in determining that Schwarzwaelder had not proven her disability. Accordingly, the Court found that this was arbitrary and capricious.

Court Considers Impact of MetLife’s Failure to Recognize Subjective Evidence

“It is a basic tenet of insurance law that an insured is disabled when the activity in question would aggravate a serious condition affecting the insured’s health.” Lasser v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. When MetLife concluded that Schwarzwaelder’s benefit claim failed because it lacked “supportive documentation”, the insurance company was unjustifiably implying that her treating physicians’ “observations and notations” regarding the impact of work-related stress on her mental condition did not constitute “supportive medical documentation.”

The Court found this arbitrary and capricious. It was clear that MetLife had failed to consider “all the essential duties” of Schwarzwaelder’s position at Merrill Lynch. It’d failed to consider that her position was a high-pressure, fast-paced, volatile position that required long hours. It was also a position which has been generally recognized as one that is mentally and emotionally demanding. More than one treating physician had reached the conclusion that the stressful nature of her position was causal to her mental health issues.

The Court Considers Attorney’s Fees

The Court determined that Schwarzwaelder’s ERISA attorney had the right to apply for attorneys fees. MetLife

  1. had acted in bad faith,
  2. had the ability to pay, and
  3. would be deterred from processing claims in the future carelessly.

Also the merits of Schwarzwaelder’s position were strong as compared against MetLife, who had elected to disregard part of the Court specific pre-remand instructions. MetLife also had a record of similar conduct. For these reasons, the Court determined that attorney’s fees should be awarded Schwarzwaelder to compensate her for disability attorney expenses.

MetLife Ordered to Pay Long-term Disability Benefits

The motion for summary judgment filed by Schwarzwaelder’s Pennsylvania disability attorney was granted. Not only would Schwarzwaelder receive the two years of disability benefits that would have begun on May 3, 2004, she would also receive prejudgment interest.


Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Submit a Strong MetLife Appeal Package

We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Metlife appeal.

Learn more

Sue MetLife

We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Metlife.

Learn more

Protect Your Benefits
Get Your MetLife Disability Application Approved
We help claimants throughout the entire application process.

Learn more

Prevent a MetLife Disability Benefit Denial
We manage every aspect of your disability claim following claim approval.

Learn more

Negotiate a MetLife Lump-Sum Settlement

Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.

Learn more

MetLife Reviews
(642)

Policy Holder Rating

1.6 out of 5
Read 52 reviews
0%would recommend
5
0%
4
0%
3
0%
2
61%
1
38%
Timely Payments
2.1out of 5
Handling Claim
1.9out of 5
Customer Service
2.1out of 5
Dependable
2.0out of 5
Value
2.0out of 5
Showing 8 of 642 Reviews
MetLife

Only care about $$$$$

Reviewed by Allen Cox on August 8th 2023   Verified Policyholder | September 2013 date of disability
PLAY THEIR GAME FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE.....after getting a copy of the insurance policy from my HR. I nipped a lot of the headaches quickly by calling their bluff word for w... read more >
Reply
Sent on August 8th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Allen,
Sorry to hear what you have been through. I am glad you fought back.

MetLife

They demanded an overpayment, stopped my claim, and lied about it

Reviewed by Diana R. on May 28th 2022   Verified Policyholder
Metlife over paid me. Stopped my Ltd claim. The overpayment were not done right. They lied and said they deposited money in my account.
Reply
Sent on May 28th 2022 by Attorney Alex Palamara

Diana, I am sorry to hear of this denial and the demand for an overpayment. Please contact us so that we can review your claim and see if we can get you back to receivi... read more >

MetLife

Your decision making process is absurd!

Reviewed by Brian on June 1st 2021   Verified Policyholder
My wife went through a nightmare with a back surgery for two discs. When the first surgery took place, the Dr. cracked a different vertebrae as they placed the metal rods ... read more >
MetLife

My husband has 2-5 yrs to live, yet MetLife has been giving him the run around

Reviewed by Tina on March 19th 2021   Verified Policyholder
My husband has STD and LTD with his employer. He was dx with ALS/Lou Gehrig’s Disease Aug 2019, made official after many many test, as of Jan 2020 but continued to work ... read more >
Reply
Sent on March 19th 2021 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Tina, I am so sorry to hear that MetLife and the employer have been giving you the run around. From everything that you described, your husband’s claim should be a qu... read more >

MetLife

Inappropriate conduct!! Rude, discriminatory, etc

Reviewed by Deanne on January 31st 2021   Verified Policyholder
Have you ever dealt with a case where the person is receiving LTD benefits but there have been issues with the case manager? For instance, the person was badgered about an... read more >
Reply
Sent on January 31st 2021 by Attorney Jay Symonds

Deanne: This certainly does not sound like appropriate conduct on the part of the claims personnel. Are you still collecting an LTD benefit? I suggest you contact our o... read more >

MetLife

Haven't been paid since MetLife denied my appeal months ago

Reviewed by Rosanne on December 8th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I was denied my appeal with Metlife, and I am still seeking medical diagnosis for other health issues. I was diagnosed with Chronic Gastritis and am now being tested for R... read more >
Reply
Sent on December 8th 2020 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Rosanne, I am sorry to hear of your denial. Please contact at once for a free consultation. We should be able to assist you with the next available steps.

MetLife

Metlife closed my STD claim amid several injuries

Reviewed by Donnette S. on October 14th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I am currently on STD with Metlife due to an accident on July 2nd. The accident broke my femur in have and I was care flighted to a trauma unit in Houston. The body scans ... read more >
Reply
Sent on October 14th 2020 by Attorney Jay Symonds

Donnette: This is a very unfortunate set of circumstances. Have you received a written denial letter? I suggest you contact our office and speak with one of the attorne... read more >

MetLife

Metlife's COLA recalculation cut my payments with no explanation why

Reviewed by Tori on September 10th 2020   Verified Policyholder
Are you aware of any class action lawsuits against Metlife Disability over their COLA adjustment method of calculations and application Of COLA? MetLife contacted me this ... read more >
Reply
Sent on September 10th 2020 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Tori, we are not involved in any class action at this time with MetLife, however, we will gladly review your policy to see if their updated calculations for your COLA a... read more >

Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
(75)
Showing 8 of 75 Answered Questions

Q: Do I have an option after my appeal is denied?

Answered on April 10th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Lauren:If your appeal is denied by MetLife then you have the option to file lawsuit in federal court. Read More >

Q: My daughter died in 2019

Answered on February 12th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: If your daughter was disabled prior to being terminated then she should have coverage. Read More >

Q: Can I sue Metlife for non payment of approved claim?

Answered on December 28th 2023 by Attorney Stephen Jessup
A: Unfortunately, the answer is "not liklely." I would assume your MetLife policy is an employer provided policy ... Read More >

Q: How far behind in payments does Metlife have to be to take legal action?

Answered on November 21st 2023 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Make sure you put all of your requests in writing so there is a record should you end up in court. It’s best... Read More >

Q: Does Metlife pay Disability payments ahead? Example: December payment is for January.

Answered on October 25th 2023 by Attorney Cesar Gavidia
A: Peg, most disability insurers pay monthly disability benefits in arrears, in other words, payments are made fo... Read More >

Q: Would any new disabling conditions be considered by Metlife when considering whether or not to continue my benefits?

Answered on October 11th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: The change in diagnosis will likely lead to denial so please explain the situation to your treating doctor. Me... Read More >

Q: MetLife: Mental Health and Physical Disabilities

Answered on May 31st 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: If you have physical disabilities that prevent you from working then you have options to get around the mental... Read More >

Q: Can my employer switch my job because I go on LTD?

Answered on April 6th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Maggie, your employer, under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), is only required to protect your job for 12 ... Read More >
Helpful Videos
(888)
Showing 12 of 888 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(330)
Showing 8 of 330 Benefit Tips

How Does Having A Disability Lawyer Help Me Fight For Metlife Disability Benefits?

Metlife is one of the top five largest long term disability insurance companies. They have to... Read More >

What Should I Expect if Metlife Wants to Send Someone to Interview me?

Metlife has a team of full time employees that go around the country interviewing long term d... Read More >

MetLife Disability Buyout and Lump Sum Settlements are Back

MetLife is one of the top five largest group and private disability insurance companies nationwide. As of January 2016 it appears that Met Lif... Read More >

Metlife - Latest trends seen in handling ERISA and private disability insurance claims

In this video nationwide disability insurance lawyers Gregory Dell and Cesar Gavidia discuss ... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #5 – Your Medical Evidence is Weak

If you're seeking long term disability benefits from an insurance company, you may be concern... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #4 - Your Doctor Is Misled By the Disability Company

When you're seeking disability benefits under a long term disability policy, your medical rec... Read More >

Disability Benefit Denial Reason #3 - Video & Social Media Surveillance

One thing many long term disability claimants don't know about (or expect) from the claims re... Read More >

How Do You Fight a Long-Term Disability Denial?

Getting a denial letter from your disability insurance company is one of the ultimate insults... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(375)
Showing 8 of 375 Dell Disability Cases

Teacher's Disability Benefits Reinstated by MetLife

Our client, a former elementary school teacher in Broward County Florida was forced to stop w... Read More >

MetLife Denies Disability Benefits and Tells TFORCE Truck Driver Its Safe For Him to Drive

Our now client was formerly employed as a Truck Driver for TForce Logistics, which, as some m... Read More >

Contracts Manager With Toxic Encephalopathy Wins MetLife Long Term Disability Denial Appeal

Our client came to us after her claim for long term disability insurance benefits was denied ... Read More >

MetLife Approves Long Term Disability Claim For Executive Assistant with Neck Pain

Our client, a former Executive Assistant at American Express, filed a claim with MetLife under American Express's short term disability policy... Read More >

MetLife Approves Disability Benefits to Dentist With De Quervain's

Prior to contacting our office, our client filed a claim for long term disability benefits under his individual disability insurance policy wi... Read More >

Dell Disability Lawyers Successfully Appeals Metlife Denial of Benefits to Veteran

Mr. A contacted our firm after being denied benefits by his employer’s group disability carrier, MetLife. He had been working as a superviso... Read More >

Metlife Overturns Denial on Appeal by Dell Disability Lawyers

Mr. W was working as a Quality Assurance Engineer for a major technology company when he was forced to stop working at the age of 52. He had b... Read More >

Senior Global Tax Director for billion dollar worldwide industrial company is again receiving disability benefits from MetLife after Appeal by Attorney Alexander Palamara

To say my client had an intellectually demanding job is an understatement. The corporation he worked for operates in 35 countries and employs ... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
(765)
Showing 8 of 765 Lawsuit Stories

Judge Agrees that MetLife's Denial of Long Term Disability Benefits was Reasonable

In Anne Ehlert v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), Ehlert was a consulting pension actuary for pension plans at Towers Watson.... Read More >

Court Rules That MetLife Improperly Limited Proof Of Claim To Only Objective Data

In Roberts v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., C.A. No. 6:18-cv-725-TMC (D. S.C. Sept. 3, 2019), Plaintiff worked for IBM for more th... Read More >

California Federal Court Overturns MetLife’s Denial of Disability Benefits

Application for Long-term Disability Under Kaiser Health PlanRenee Monroe worked as a Human Resources Compliance Specialist for ... Read More >

Court Rules That MetLife Did Not Consider The Material Duties Of Claimants Occupation

In Monroe v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2020 WL 143005 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2020), Plaintiff worked for Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“Kai... Read More >

MetLife Pre-Existing Condition Disability Benefit Denial for Back Injury Reversed

Does a Pre-Existing Back Injury to L4-5 Preclude Benefits for an Injury to L2-3?In Karl Meche v. Metropolitan Life Insuranc... Read More >

Programmer Denied LTD Benefits by MetLife Upheld by Court

In the case of Robert Gordon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), Plaintiff was a Senior Staff Systems Programmer ... Read More >

MetLife's Denial of LTD Benefits Was Based on Substantial Evidence

The Plaintiff in Patricia Ann McNeal v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), was employed by Alternative Opportunities, Inc. (Altern... Read More >

Met-Life Denies Benefits when Claimant Fails to Present Evidence to Support His Claim

The case of Dionisio Santana-Diaz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) demonstrates how important it is for claimants to present a... Read More >

Reviews from Our Clients

Request a Free Consultation

Our Lawyers Respond Same Day

5 Ways We Help Get Your Benefits Paid

Get Your Disability Application Approved

Our goal is to get your application for disability income benefits approved. Applying for disability benefits can be a difficult process and the information you provide is critical. Most disability insurance companies look at your application in hopes of finding a reason to deny your claim. Your disability company will ask you to complete numerous forms, interview you, request lots of information, speak with your doctors and possibly request to have you examined by their "hired gun" doctor.

Through our experience of having helped thousands of disability insurance claimants, our lawyers will guide you through the entire application process and give you the best chance to get your disability claim approved the first time.

Submit A Strong Appeal Package

If your disability insurance benefits have been wrongfully denied, then our lawyers know exactly what it takes to get your disability claim approved. You only get once chance to submit an Appeal, therefore every piece of evidence that will support your disability claim must be included. The goal is to win your disability benefits at the Appeal level, but while preparing your Appeal you must consider how a federal judge will review your disability claim if your benefit denial is upheld.

Preparing a strong disability appeal package is an art that requires you to understand how the courts interpret your disability policy language, ERISA regulations / laws, and how to strategically present evidence in support of your definition of "disability". We encourage you to contact any of our lawyers for a free immediate review of your disability denial.

Sue Your Disability Company

98% of the disability insurance lawsuits filed by our law firm have resulted in either the payment of benefits or a lump-sum settlement agreement. Our disability lawyers have filed ERISA governed and private policy long term disability insurance lawsuits against every major disability insurance company in state and federal courts nationwide and we love fighting for the "little guy" against the multi-billion dollar insurance company giants.

We have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for our clients and we would like the opportunity to provide you with a free review of your disability benefit denial. There are many complex factors in a disability benefit lawsuit and the legal battle to win long term disability benefits can be fierce.

Prevent A Disability Benefit Denial

Approval of long-term disability is a continuous process as every disability insurance company will evaluate your eligibility for benefits on a monthly basis. You can never let your guard down and assume that your disability company will continue to pay your benefits for as long as you think you need them.

Our law firm offers a reasonable flat fee monthly claim handling service in which we handle every aspect of your long-term disability claim and do whatever it takes to make sure you are paid every month.

Negotiate a Lump-Sum Settlement

Let's discuss if a lump-sum settlement or buyout of your disability insurance claim is both available and makes financial sense for you. Our lawyers have negotiated more than five-hundred million dollars in disability insurance buyouts and we know how to get you a maximum settlement. A disability insurance company is not required to offer a buyout and not every disability company offers them.

Questions About Hiring Us

Who are Dell Disability Lawyers?

We are disability insurance lawyers that know how to get your short or long term disability benefits paid. As a nationwide law firm we have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants throughout the United States to collect hundreds of millions of dollars of disability insurance benefits from every major disability insurance company.

In more than 98% of our cases, our lawyers have been able to either get our clients paid monthly disability benefits or obtain a one-time lump-sum settlement. Our lawyers have seen it all when it comes to disability insurance claims and we know exactly what it takes for your disability claim to be approved.

We welcome you to contact any of our attorneys for a free immediate review of your disability claim. We also invite you to visit and subscribe to our YouTube channel where we have more than 700 videos and regularly provide tips to help protect your disability benefits.

Who do you help?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer. We have helped individuals in almost every type of occupation with monthly disability benefit payments ranging from $1,500 to $50,000.

Our clients include all types of employees ranging from retail associates, sales representatives, government employees, police officers, teachers, janitors, nurses, pilots, truck drivers, financial advisors, doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, consultants, IT professionals, engineers, professional athletes, business owners, and high level executives.

A strong understanding and presentation of the duties of your occupation is essential for securing disability insurance benefits.

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 phone, email, fax, GoToMeeting 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 800-698-9159 or by email. Lawyers 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.