New York court rules that MetLife abused discretion when it denied chronic fatigue claim (Part II)

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) began paying John Magee long-term disability benefits in December 2004 after he was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and disabling depression. Two years later, after conducting what it claimed was a thorough review, MetLife terminated his benefits because he no longer suffered from disabling depression and had not been able to supply objective proof that MetLife found acceptable and which confirmed his chronic fatigue syndrome. After MetLife denied his appeal on May 7, 2007, Magee had no choice but to take his claim before the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of New York. For a summary of the pre-suit events that led to Magee filing an ERISA disability law suit see MetLife denies chronic fatigue syndrome long term disability claim.

He needed an experienced disability attorney representing him, for MetLife has tremendous financial resources and extensive experience at defending disability claim denials. Because the long-term disability plan that Magee participated in was governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Court would be looking at MetLife’s denial using an insurance company friendly standard, known as the abuse of discretion standard of review (also known as the arbitrary and capricious standard in some U.S. District Courts.)

This standard of review only asks the Court to weigh the merits of the disability insurance plan administrator’s decision. If the evidence before the Court suggests that the facts would convince a reasonable mind that the information available to the Plan adequately supports the decision reached by the disability insurance plan, then the decision stands. There are several things the Court keeps in mind as it evaluates the administrator’s decision:

  1. Did MetLife consider all the relevant factors connected with Magee’s claim?
  2. Was the conclusion reached by MetLife rational and not arbitrary in light of these relevant factors?
  3. Was the review provided by MetLife full and fair, providing Magee with enough information to prepare an adequate appeal both before MetLife or if necessary before the Courts?

The Court would consider MetLife’s decision using these three questions to guide the review of MetLife’s denial of disability benefits.

Court considers right of MetLife to demand objective proof of disability

First, the Court considered MetLife’s requirement that Magee provide objective proof of his disability. Maniatty v. Unumprovident suggest that it was reasonable for MetLife to ask for objective proof. Yet, Connors v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. also recognized that “the subjective element of pain is an important factor to be considered in determining disability.” When the diagnosis is chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, the Courts have recognized that the symptoms are entirely subjective, posing a unique issue for plan administrators. In Cook v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Boston, the Court “recognized that fibromyalgia is a disabling impairment and that there are no objective tests which can conclusively confirm the disease.”

In Williams v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., the Court recognized that there is a distinction “between the amount of fatigue and pain an individual experiences…” The Court recognized that pain “is entirely subjective, and how much an individual’s degree of pain or fatigue limits his functional capabilities, which can be objectively measured.” In Cook v. N.Y. Times Co. Long-Term Disability Plan, the Court determined that it is “”¦ reasonable to insist on some objective measure of a claimants’ capacity to work so long as that measure is appropriate.”

The question then before the Court was whether MetLife’s insistence upon some objective measure of Magee’s capacity to work was appropriate, for it was Magee’s failure to provide “objective evidence” that resulted in MetLife’s decision to terminate his disability benefits. After looking at the record, the Court saw in MetLife’s demand for objective proof circular reasoning. MetLife admitted in the record that there are no tests available to evaluate CFS, yet the disability insurance company refused to continue benefits for lack of testing. The Court found that this suggested a flawed arbitrary and capricious decision.

Court considers MetLife compliance with ERISA regulations

ERISA required MetLife to clearly state what information it was seeking and to tell Magee what criteria it was applying to that information. Yet, MetLife’s letters were ambiguous. MetLife told Magee that his file “lacked medical evidence of clinical findings that supported a severity of impairment that resulted in functional limitations.” Yet, nowhere did MetLife indicate what it considered “medical evidence of clinical findings.” Even if Magee had produced this “evidence”, MetLife failed to state how this evidence would support the severity of his impairment.

MetLife had acknowledged that CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion, then told Magee that he did not meet “the criteria for the syndrome.” Nowhere in the record did MetLife define the criteria its reviewing physicians applied. This inadequate denial letter, further suggested that MetLife’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Court considers evidence of CFS disability presented to MetLife

MetLife supported its decision to terminated Magee’s long-term disability benefits based on two independent physician reviews that it ordered. The Court found that the reports prepared by MetLife physicians Payne and Maslow were both seriously flawed. Dr. Payne agreed that Magee’s medical evidence met the criteria for a CFS diagnosis, yet denied that CFS could be the source of his pain. He also failed to consider hypovolumia and orthostatic hypotension reports in Magee’s file.

Likewise, Dr. Maslow’s report reflected a careless evaluation of the medical record. It ignored an MRI and exercise test, without explaining why. It arbitrarily chose to disregard a blood volume test due to a typographical error in which Magee was incorrectly identified as a female instead of a male. He claimed that two orthostatic tolerance tests conducted six days apart were inconsistent with each other, yet when the Court compared them, they were entirely consistent. He claimed that one SF-36 test was inadequate, ignoring that there had been three additional tests in the record spanning three years. He claimed that this one test could not establish CFS, yet Magee had provided no less than six types of tests to establish his disability. Dr. Maslow failed to explain why these additional tests were insufficient standing together to establish Magee’s CFS.

Court considers MetLife’s decision to terminate benefits because depression no longer exists

The record clearly indicated from the beginning that depression had been a secondary symptom. Even MetLife’s own consultant had agreed with this diagnosis. Dr. Maslow’s opinion, offered several years later, was inconsistent with the information provided by both Magee’s psychiatrist, Dr. Tariot, and MetLife’s psychiatrist, Dr. Gosline. Boffonge v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. ruled in 2005 that an “administrator’s decision must be reasoned to survive arbitrary and capricious review … and we cannot say that a decision based on multiple pieces of faulty evidence was reasoned.” Both Dr. Payne and Dr. Maslow had failed to consider all the pertinent information available to them, thus their decisions were faulty.

Court considers MetLife’s failure to consider Social Security disability approval

A Social Security disability determination does not bind an ERISA Plan or a district court to reaching the same conclusion. At the same time, the Court is not required to ignore an SSA decision. When a plan administrator, such as Met Life requires a claimant to apply for Social Security disability benefits in order to retain eligibility for benefits, the Court expects the insurance company to have an explanation for ignoring a positive Social Security disability decision.

In Magee’s case, MetLife chose to not consider the successful bid for Social Security disability benefits at all, even though this reduced the Plan’s financial obligations considerably. When MetLife tried to argue that Social Security’s Administrative Law Judge had rejected certain facts, which the disability insurance plan claimed justified ignoring the SSA decision, the Court refused to hear the argument. In Juliano, the Court made it clear that when an ERISA claimant, such as Magee, has been “denied the timely and specific explanation to which the law entitles them”, the Court will not allow the disability insurance plan to sandbag the claimant “by after-the-fact plan interpretations devised for purposes of litigation.” MetLife had failed to explain why it had not considered the Social Security decision proof of Magee’s disability, a fact which further supported the Court’s growing evidence that MetLife’s decision had been arbitrary.

Court considers the merit of the medical evidence

Black and Decker Disability Plan v. Nord clearly establishes the fact that a Plan administrator does not have to explain why it prefers to give credit to reliable evidence when it conflicts with the opinion of a treating physician. Yet, Nord also establishes the Court’s expectation that plan administrators will give credit to reliable evidence produced by a claimant.

MetLife was willing to give credit to some of Dr. Bell’s opinions, yet completely discounted others without explanation. The disability insurance plan used Dr. Bell’s opinion that Magee no longer suffered from depression as the reason they were terminating his benefits, while totally ignoring his expertise in the field of CFS. This, too, suggested that MetLife’s termination of Magee’s disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious.

Court considers MetLife’s multiple failures to prove it made a reasonable decision

The Court weighed six factors:

  1. the objective evidence requirement that could not be met,
  2. the inadequate explanation for why Magee’s benefits were being terminated,
  3. the flawed evidence MetLife relied on to make its decision,
  4. the failure to consider the objective evidence Magee did provide,
  5. MetLife’s failure to consider Social Security’s disability decision finding Magee disabled, and
  6. the inconsistent way in which MetLife applied Magee’s treating physicians opinions. The Court found MetLife’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Magee’s disability attorney had filed a motion for summary judgment in order to have the benefit denial reversed. The Court agreed that MetLife had acted arbitrary and instructed MetLife to reconsider their denial of LTD benefits. The court did not award disability benefits to Magee and he therefore remains subject to Metlife’s further review of his claim. This is a court victory for Magee, but it is possible that he could end up in court again if Metlife denies his claim again.

Court considers fair remedy for CFS claimant

Miller states that when “a district court concludes that the [Plan Administrator’s] decision was arbitrary and capricious, it must remand to the [Plan Administrator] with instructions to consider additional evidence unless no new evidence could produce a reasonable conclusion permitting a denial of the claim or remand would otherwise be a useless formality.”

Magee’s case was a close one, the Court chose to send Magee’s claim back to MetLife for reconsideration. This was primarily because the Court felt that some of the evidence had never been considered by MetLife. The Court ordered MetLife to handle Magee’s claim as if it were a new claim, seeking information as though it had never made an adverse determination.

The Court also considered whether Magee was entitled to compensation for disability attorney fees. Even though the Court had not chosen to issue summary judgment in Magee’s favor, the Court found that MetLife still had an obligation under ERISA to compensate him for the expenses incurred in bringing his claim before the Court. First, MetLife had denied Magee a full and fair review, leaving him no option but to bring a lawsuit. Second, MetLife’s review process had been flawed, nothing new within this particular U.S. District Court. Third, MetLife had the ability to pay the award of disability attorney fees.

Magee’s disability attorney was instructed to present MetLife with a bill for reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs connected with filing the lawsuit for those branches of Magee’s motions in which he prevailed. If MetLife was unable to reach an agreement with Magee’s disability insurance attorney, the Court ordered him to present sufficient documentation to allow the Court to determine the size of the award.

At the same time, the Court recognized that Magee still owed MetLife $16,831.21 from the Social Security disability retroactive payment received when Magee was found disabled by the SSA. The Court did issue summary judgment for MetLife for its counterclaim for this amount. MetLife will be allowed to subtract this amount from the amount Magee asks for his disability attorney’s fees.

There still remains a chance that John Magee may find himself in Court, yet again, but it would appear that the judge hearing this case, clearly felt that the evidence was so decidedly in Magee’s favor that he could expect MetLife to make the right decision. The decision still remains a victory for sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome. As this mysterious, yet crippling disease, becomes better understood, disability attorneys will be working hard to see more CFS claimants succeed in securing their long-term disability benefits.

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

Policy Holder Rating

1.6 out of 5
Read 52 reviews
0%would recommend
Timely Payments
2.1out of 5
Handling Claim
1.9out of 5
Customer Service
2.1out of 5
2.0out of 5
2.0out of 5
Showing 8 of 52 Reviews

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 >
Sent on August 8th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell

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


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.
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 >


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 >

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 >
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 >


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 >
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 >


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 >
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 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 >
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'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 >
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
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
Showing 12 of 861 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
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
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
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.