MetLife denies long-term disability benefits to a consultant after approving them

In the case we are going to look at, a disability insurance attorney found himself representing a client who believed that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) had wrongfully denied the extension of his long-term disability benefits. This is a far too common occurrence, and one that disability insurance attorneys see frequently. As we look at this case, you will see that without the representation of a disability attorney, John Lanier would not have received his rightful benefits.

Lanier became a manager and software engineer when he left college. This led eventually to employment with KPMG Consulting, Inc. in 1999. In 2002, the company changed its name to Bearing Point, Inc. The change in name had no effect upon the employee benefits package, which included both short-term and long-term disability benefits administered by MetLife. The plan would consider Lanier disabled if during the first three years following an elimination period he was “unable to perform the material and substantial duties of (his) Own Occupation.” After the three years, the plan would only consider Lanier disabled if he couldn’t perform any job for which he was qualified for or could become qualified for when his training, education and experience were considered.

In his college days, Lanier had been an active man who did not drink or smoke. Despite his healthy lifestyle he began to experience back pain in his early twenties. The pain progressed to the point that it began interfering with his job duties which included extensive travel. This meant he spent considerable time walking, sitting, lifting and carrying a computer and luggage. If he wasn’t travelling by plane, he spent long hours driving a car. Lifting 10 – 20 lbs., carrying 10 lbs., and pushing or pulling 30 – 40 lbs. on a daily basis was a regular requirement of his position.

Beginning in 1999, Lanier resorted to surgery to see if it would alleviate his back conditions. He underwent a lumbar diskectomy and laminectomy in 1999, then a second laminectomy in 2001. Finally in October 2002, Lanier applied to MetLIfe for short-term disability benefits under his plan with Bearing Point.

His treating physician diagnosed him with chronic cervical and lumbar pain, left lumbosacral radiculopathy, congenital narrowing of the spinal canal in the lumbar region and fibromyalgia-like features expressed through chronic migratory pain, anatomical abnormalities with multiple impairments in the cervical and lumbar spine that were objective in nature, advanced degenerative arthritis in the lumbar spine at multiple levels, disc protrusion and spondylosis from C3 all the way through T2, bilateral ulnar neuropathy at the elbows and dysfunctional sleep-wake cycles.

Lanier was also diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder during this time.

MetLife approves short-term disability. Disability insurance attorney not yet needed.

MetLife approved the short-term disability from October 9, 2002 through April 6, 2003. Lanier then applied for long-term disability benefits based on his severe fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis of the lumbar spine and degenerative disc disease. His application was approved on June 4, 2003, with an effective date of April 7, 2003. MetLife agreed to pay benefits for 36 months.

Six months before Lanier’s benefits were due for review at the higher standard of “any occupation,” he received notice that MetLife was not going to approve him for continuing long-term disability benefits. MetLife claimed that

  1. the office visit notes from his treating physician, Dr. Geoffrey Seidel, from April 25, 2005, July 26, 2005 and August 25, 2005;
  2. the prescription requests from June 11, 2005 and July 1, 2005;
  3. Dr. Seidel’s attending physician statement from August 25, 2005; and
  4. Dr. Seidel’s physical capacity evaluation dated August 25, 2005 demonstrated that he would be able to work in another occupation.

MetLife misreads physical capacity evaluation. Time to contact disability attorney arrives.

The primary document which MetLife relied on was Dr. Seidel’s physical capacity evaluation. This evaluation suggested that Lanier could sit for six hours and stand and walk for one hour. This suggested an improvement over a previous evaluation from January 9, 2003 that had said he could only sit for four hours intermittently, stand for one hour intermittently, and walk for one hour intermittently. The more recent evaluation suggested that Lanier would be able to work at a sedentary job such as chief bank examiner, controller with the Department of Transportation, or as a credit and collection manager.

Lanier appealed the decision in March 2006. It appears that he had hired a disability attorney by this time.

He included a new report from Dr. Seidel, dated December 5, 2005, which corrected misunderstandings conveyed in the August 25, 2005 physical capacity evaluation. He also provided proof that his application for Social Security disability benefits, as required by MetLife to continue his disability benefits, had received a favorable determination. He also included additional tests that confirmed his continuing disability.

  • An electrodiagnostic test performed September 22, 2005 that confirmed his chronic left radiculopathy and proving that no changes have occurred since the 2003 test had been performed.
  • Electrodiagnostic tests performed on his left and right elbows on September 28, 2005 revealing bilateral ulnar neuropathy.
  • An MRI of the lumbroscal spine performed on September 23, 2005 confirming the congenital and chronic disc disease diagnosis and providing additional evidence of Dr. Seidel’s diagnosis of spinal nerve root compression.
  • An MRI of the cervical spine performed on September 26, 2005 confirming the worsening condition of his multi-level degenerative disc disease and stenosis as compared to the 2003 MRI.

Doctor seeks to clear up misreading of physical capacity evaluation.

It must be noted that in his December 5 letter, Dr. Seidel explained why he was submitting a new evaluation that contradicted the one of August 25. He explained that he had mistakenly carried over a prior answer from the first page and that he wanted to emphasize that the answer had been incorrect and he wanted to clarify what the correct answer should have been. He noted that Lanier could only tolerate sitting for one to two hours per day working at a computer in a seated position. Whenever he tried to extend this length of time at the computer, he would get headaches and his back pain would become unbearable and the radicular symptoms also became unbearable.

Pointing to the ulnar neuropathy, Dr. Seidel said that it was unreasonable to expect Lanier to be able to perform typical sedentary work. He stated that the only way that Lanier could sit in one place was in a recliner in which he had head support, not a very practical work environment requirement.

Dr. Seidel also noted that Lanier had explored chiropractic care to see if it would help. The results had been inconsistent, and he had finally abandoned the treatments.

In addition to making his appeal on his actual physical condition, Lanier’s disability attorney also pointed to his mental health impairments. Documentation included a psychological evaluation from Dr. Patricia Pearson, who evaluated him for Social Security disability. She had diagnosed him with severe generalized anxiety, severe depressive disorder secondary to physical pain and limitations, and severe pain disorder with psychological factors associated with a general medical condition. She had concluded that he would be unable to do customary work.

Lanier also presented testimony presented during the Social Security proceedings. Vocational expert Elaine M. Tripi, PhD had reviewed Lanier’s symptomatology and limitations and functional limitations and reached the conclusion that he was “unable to perform his past or any other work that exists in the community.”

MetLife reverses decision to deny long-term disability benefits.

MetLife found this information compelling, and reversed its denial decision on June 14, 2006. The evidence of radiculopathy, exempted Lanier from a 24 month limitation that existed for neuromuscular and soft tissue disorders. They reinstated his long-term disability benefits effective as of April 7, 2006. It appeared that Lanier’s need for a disability insurance attorney had ended.

Because Social Security had awarded retroactive benefits to April 2003, MetLife claimed that it had overpaid Lanier by $60,440, less the cost of attorney fees for the time between April 7, 2003 through December 6, 2005. In order to recoup this loss, MetLife reduced Lanier’s monthly payments by the $1990 that Lanier received Social Security each month. MetLife also notified Lanier that it would withhold any further benefit payments beginning with January 2006 until it was able to recoup the entire remaining $55,148 in overpaid benefits. Lanier compensated MetLife for the overpayment on January 12, 2006.

MetLife reverses again. Denies long-term disability benefits a second time.

Then MetLife reversed itself again on February 6, 2007. The decision to terminate the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits came, not because MetLife had new information about Lanier’s medical condition, but because it had sent his medical records that for review by new experts. One of the experts was a MetLife clinical specialist. The other was vocational rehabilitation consultant Mary L. Hale, who had reviewed Dr. Seidel’s repudiated August 25, 2005 physical capacity evaluation and reached the conclusion that there was no evidence to support that he had less than sedentary capacity. Hale went on to say that based on Dr. Seidel’s functional capacities review of May 3, 2006, Lanier should be able to function at a sedentary level for an eight-hour workday.

Lanier clearly needed the assistance of his disability attorney again. He appealed the decision to cancel his benefits on August 2, 2007. His letter noted that it was an error to rely on Dr. Seidel’s August 25, 2005 letter. To correct any confusion, he attached a new attending physician statement by Dr. Seidel dated February 21, 2007.

In this statement, Dr. Seidel limited Lanier’s abilities to one hour of sitting, standing, and walking. Lanier also provided a doctor’s note dated February 19, 2007, stating that Dr. Seidel had seen no improvement in Lanier health. Lanier also argued that MetLife was failing to take into consideration the information he had submitted in his March 6, 2006 appeal, including the outcome of the Social Security disability proceedings.

Just in case there were any questions, Dr. Seidel gave a clear description of Lanier’s physical limitations. He said that Lanier was only able to sit for 15 to 20 minutes before he had to get up, reposition, lie down or walk for a few minutes. Dr. Seidel said that Lanier was unable to work at his computer at home for more than 20 minutes due to the spasms that occurred in the back of his neck. The doctor stated that if Lanier sat for too long, the pain in his leg increased to the point where he had to go lay down. And finally, the doctor noted that Lanier had difficulty coping from an emotional perspective.

MetLife orders paper review of medical record. Doctors claim evidence does not support inability to perform sedentary work.

Lanier’s appeal was referred to medical consultants, Dr. Reginald Gibbons, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Sandar Pemmaraju, a physical medicine specialist. Neither doctor examined or spoke with Lanier, limiting their review to the medical record MetLife forwarded to them. While Dr. Gibbons, on August 21, 2007, acknowledged that the evidence supported Lanier’s continued complaints of depression and anxiety, the psychiatrist calimed it was inadequate to support functional limitations as a February 7, 2007. He criticized Dr. Seidel’s diagnosis and statement of limitations because there were no records of cognitive testing.

Dr. Pemmaraju likewise found on the same day that the medical information failed to support functional limitations significant enough to prevent Lanier from performing sedentary work. He criticized the fact that there was no formal capacity examination in the file.

MetLife claimed to have forwarded both of these doctor’s reports to Dr. Seidel for comment on August 24, 2007. Dr. Seidel responded on August 28, 2007, but it appears that MetLife failed to consider this letter before it confirmed its denial decision on September 6. The denial letter provided the following reasons for upholding the disability insurance reversal:

“[W]ith the medical records available for review, we concluded that the file did not contain any severity of impairment that resulted in functional limitations and restrictions preventing you from performing sedentary level of employment beyond February 6, 2007.

“In completing our review, we have determined that although you have medical conditions that support you having restrictions and limitations, you would be able to perform sedentary level work. Your symptoms and diagnoses would not prevent you from performing the alternate occupations identified with alternate employers. Therefore, our original decision to terminate your long-term disability benefits beyond February 6, 2007 was appropriate.”

Dr. Seidel’s letter of August 28 had disagreed with these conclusions. First, he stated that he had only received Dr. Pemmaraju’s review, thus he could not comment on Dr. Given’s review. Second, he noted that Dr. Pemmaraju’s review appeared to be based on an incomplete medical record, for it ignored many of the clinical findings. And finally, he explained that Lanier had not had a full functional capacity evaluation because no one was willing to pay for it.

Dr. Seidel, based on yet another examination of Lanier, reported that he had the following impairments:

  1. chronic cervical pain;
  2. chronic lumbar pain;
  3. left lumbrosacral radiculopathy;
  4. right cervical radiculopathy;
  5. fibromyalgia;
  6. dysfunctional sleep-wake cycle;
  7. objective reduced range of motion of the cervical spine, mild reduction in range of motion of the right shoulder, objective reduction in range of motion of the lumbar spine, and objective atrophy noted in the right upper extremity and left lower extremity;
  8. radiographic evidence of advanced severe degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine and lumbar spine in excess of what would be expected for his age.

MetLife ignores information supplied by attending physician.

By now, Lanier’s disability insurance attorney was vital. A September 20 letter from MetLife revealed that the disability insurance provider had not found Dr. Seidel’s letter convincing. The insurance company claimed that the letter failed to provide any additional objective clinical proof, thus they were not going to change their original appeal denial. As far as MetLife was concerned, Lanier had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Lanier made another effort to avoid taking his claim to court. To confirm his diagnosis with objective testing, Dr. Seidel ordered two more MRIs, one of his cervical spine and one of his lumbar spine. He also ordered electrodiagnostic testing of Lanier’s upper and lower extremities. Dr. Seidel sent the results of these tests to MetLife on October 1, 2007. MetLife received the information on October 9.

The nerve conduction study of upper extremities showed “no electro diagnostic evidence of bilateral median mononeuropathy or carpal tunnel syndrome,” yet it did show “electro diagnostic evidence of worsening bilateral ulnar neuropathy at cubital tunnel [but] no active axonal loss,” and “no electrodiagnostic evidence of bilateral cervical radiculopathy or plexopathy.”

The nerve conduction study on Ranier’s lower extremities revealed abnormalities. Ranier exhibited right L5-S 1 radiculopathy without active axonal loss. Larger polyphasia units were still present, indicating muscle or nerve damage, though the electrodiagnostic evidence failed to demonstrate sensory and motor peripheral polyneuropathy. There was no electrodiagnostic evidence of right lumbrosacral radiculopathy or plexopathy, as well.

The MRI results from September 18, 2007 showed minimal retrolisthesis and mixed biforarninal protrusions. A small central protrusion at the C4-C5 level slightly flattened the vental cord, slightly effacing the exiting right and abutting the exiting left C5 nerves. The MRI also found mixed biforaminal protrusions, with the right protrusions being greater than the left. The MRI observed a flattening of the right side of the ventral cord at the C5-C6 level. Mild retrolisthesis and mixed broad-based displacement with a slight flattening of the ventral cord at C6-C7 level that abutted the bilateral exiting C7 nerves was also noted. No abnormal enhancement was identified.

Disability insurance attorney files lawsuit to get disability benefits reinstated.

MetLife rejected the new information, claiming that the new test results had no bearing on their decision because their denial had been based on Lanier’s ability to work beyond February 7, 2007. As far as MetLife was concerned, test results from September 2007 could not support Lanier’s inability to perform sedentary work at the time they reversed their disability benefits decision. Lanier chose to exercise his rights under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA) and his disability attorney filed action on his behalf in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

How did his disability attorney present his case? Why was his challenge of MetLife’s benefits denial successful? We will consider this in our next article, MetLife Ordered to Reverse Denial of Long-Term Disability.


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
(52)

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 52 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
(74)
Showing 8 of 74 Answered Questions

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 >

Q: Can MetLife deduct the ssdi benefits I receive for my dependent kids from what they pay me?

Answered on March 29th 2022 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Unfortunately your MetLife disability policy likely allows for an offset of what SSDI pays you and for your de... Read More >
Helpful Videos
(861)
Showing 12 of 861 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
(329)
Showing 8 of 329 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 #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 >

Disability Denial Reason #2 - Change of Disability Definition & Vocational Review

One of the top reasons for terminating a claimant's long term disability benefits involves th... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
(369)
Showing 8 of 369 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
(764)
Showing 8 of 764 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... 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.