Michigan Court Reverses AT&T’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Two Claims for Short Term Benefits

In Filthout v. AT&T Midwest Disability Benefit, et al., plaintiff Rebecca Filthout had worked several years for Michigan Bell Telephone Company as a service representative when she began having chest and back pain. She was initially diagnosed with kidney problems. Her first application for short term benefits under her employee disability insurance policy provided by AT&T Midwest Disability Benefit Plan (AT&T) was granted and she took about a month off of work.

She continued to suffer from chronic back pain and was examined by three different physicians who diagnosed her with lumbar degenerative disease, myofascial strain in the rib area and segmental somatic dysfunction. As a result, she made three additional requests for short term benefits: January 13, to February 23, 2014 (Claim 1); March 3 to April 14, 2014 (Claim 2); and April 16 to May 7, 2014 (Claim 3). AT&T denied all three requests, stating that she had not provided sufficient evidence to prove she could not perform her sedentary job. After exhausting her administrative remedies, she filed an ERISA lawsuit.

A Michigan federal District Court found that for two out of her three requests, AT&T acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and reversed AT&T’s denial. The Court allowed the decision on Claim 1 to stand in favor of AT&T. The Court relied on the case of Shaw v. AT&T Umbrella Ben. Plan No 1, 795 F.3d. 538 (6th Cir.2015) which was nearly identical to plaintiff Filthout’s. The same issues were raised against the same defendant.

AT&T Ignored Favorable Evidence from Filthaut’s Treating Physicians

In denying plaintiff’s Claim 2, AT&T stated “there was no evidence in the medical record of a functional impairment” and no objective findings to support disability. In fact, plaintiff’s treating physicians had noted she could not ambulate and placed restrictions on her activity.

In rejecting Claim 3, AT&T had “improperly contradicted a treating physician without giving a reason. Although a plan administrator is not required to accept the opinion of treating physicians, a reason must be given when an opinion is contradicted. A reviewing physician acknowledged that a treating physician had placed many restrictions on the work of the plaintiff, but then he ignored the restrictions and stated she could do her “sedentary job without restriction.” No reason was given for ignoring the opinion of the treating physician.

AT&T Selectively Reviewed Evidence from Treating Physicians

AT&T’s reviewing physician selectively reviewed the evidence from the treating physicians by ignoring the conclusions about her musculoskeletal evidence of her pain. Instead they focused on the report of a physician who had ruled out a nephrology issue as the source of her pain. This required reversal of AT&T’s denial of Claim 2.

AT&T Failed to Conduct its Own Physical Evaluation

AT&T’s reviewing physicians determined plaintiff was not credible in reporting her pain symptoms. None of them ever examined her or had a conversation with her. AT&T’s credibility determination was in direct conflict with that of her treating physicians. In circumstances like this, when the plan provides for an independent medical exam (IME), it was arbitrary and capricious for AT&T to make a credibility determination without at least giving Filthout the benefit of an IME.

AT&T Relied Heavily on Non-treating Consultants

Although the Court remained suspect of the denial of plaintiff’s Claim 1, which was based solely on the opinion of a non-treating consultant, and looked at that conclusion “with some skepticism,” it allowed the denial of Claim 1 to stand.

This case was not handled by our office. It may be instructive to those faced with similar issues when their plan administrator seems to be ignoring the reports by treating physicians in favor of the opinion of its own non-treating consultants. If you have any questions about this or any aspect of your own disability case, feel free to call one of our disability attorneys and arrange for a free consultation.

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

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 telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com 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 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer 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.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Marnie A. (Florida)

They handled the case very carefully finding the proper way to challenge the disability company that they are/were in the wrong and must pay me for monies owed to me as a disabled individual.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us