• Applying for Standard Disability Benefits? Top 5 Claim Denial Reasons
  • Denied LTD Benefits by The Standard? Lawyer Tips to Win an ERISA Appeal
  • The Standard Insurance Company Long Term Disability Benefit Claims, Denials, Appeal and Lawsuit Help
  • The Standard: What To Expect With A Long Term Disability Benefit Claim
  • Who Makes The Final Decison To Approve Or Deny Disability Insurance Benefits? (Ep. 17)
  • A Senator's View of ERISA Disability Insurance Claims (Ep. 20)
  • The Standard Insurance Company - Disability Buyout or Lump Sum Offer?

Oregon Judge orders Standard Insurance Company to pay disability insurance benefits beyond the 24 month mental disorder limitation

In James F. Kitterman Vs Standard Insurance Company and Standard Select Trust Insurance Plans, the plaintiff, through his disability attorney, brought an ERISA action against the Standard Insurance Company (Standard) seeking to recover long term disability insurance benefits wrongfully denied under the terms of a group insurance plan (the Plan) issued by The Standard Insurance Company.

This case is a victory for disability claimants and addresses an issue that is very common among thousands of claimants seeking disability benefits.

The Facts of the Case against Standard Insurance Company

The plaintiff Dr. Kitterman suffered from a long history of migraines and depression. He applied for disability insurance benefits with Standard and listed the causes for his inability to work as depression, migraines and anxiety. Standard approved the plaintiff’s claim and provided the plaintiff with monthly disability payments from March 2005 until March 2007.

On March of 2007, Standard terminated the plaintiff’s disability benefits claiming that the 24 month “Mental Disorder” limitation in the plaintiff’s policy applied to his claim. The limitation provided:

Mental Disorder: Payment of LTD Benefits is limited to 24 months for each period of Disability caused or contributed to by a Mental Disorder.

“Mental Disorder means a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder.”

Judicial Review by the District Court

The plaintiff argued that that mental disorder limitation provision is ambiguous. Standard argued that there are two fatal flaws in the plaintiff’s argument because:

  1. To find an ambiguity would require the Court to ignore the fact that the plaintiff’s major depression is disabling without regard to his migraines and mistakenly treat it as a mixed condition matter.
  2. Even if the limitation is ambiguous, it does not relieve the Court of its obligation to review the record and determine if the plaintiff is in fact disabled under the Plan.

District Court’s Ruling

The court disagreed with Standard’s contention mentioned above. The Court ruled that the Mental Disorder limitation provision of the Plan is ambiguous. Second, the Court argued that the matter at hand is a mixed-condition matter as the Administrative Record indicated that the plaintiff’s migraines are a cause of his depression. The court also ruled that the plaintiff is indeed disabled under the Plan and is entitled to more benefits. In addition, the Court concluded that the migraines are disabling in and of themselves.

Mental Disorder Limitation Is Ambiguous

The Court held that ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed against the insurance company under the rule known as the “doctrine of contra proferentum.” The doctrine require the Court to take a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity, in this case the phrase ‘mental disorder’, as not to include ‘mental’ conditions resulting from ‘physical’ disorders.

As such, if the plaintiff’s migraines caused his depression, the limitation does not apply and plaintiff is entitled to additional benefits.

Plaintiff’s Migraines, a Cause of Plaintiff’s Depression

The court noted that three (3) of the plaintiff’s attending physicians provided Standard with their medical opinion after Standard sent the plaintiff a notice stating that it intended to terminate the plaintiff’s disability benefits after two years based on the Mental Disorder limitation.

On February 22nd 2007, plaintiff’s treating neurologist, wrote:

Mr. Kitterman has not one but two disabling conditions his chronic refractory depression and his frequent recurrent migraine headaches which wreaked havoc with his dermatology practice in past years. Despite our best therapeutic attempts, we have not been able to reign in the headaches. He currently carries a diagnosis of chronic daily migraine, greater than 15 days of migraine per month. Under almost any criteria that I know, this is disabling itself.

On March 5th 2007, the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist wrote:

As noted by Hubert Leonard, MD, in his letter of February 22, 2007, Dr. Kitterman’s migraines are severe enough to justify his inability to continue his practice as a physician”¦.Let me be clear. The severity of Dr. Kitterman’s depression is related to his inability to be a physician. The current severity of his depression is the result of his inability to continue with his chosen career. Despite aggressive treatment of his migraines, he continues to be impaired. This would be problematic even if he was not experiencing depression in response to the dramatic changes in his life.

The court observed that Standard largely relied on their medical consultants who reviewed plaintiff’s medical records. The court also noted that Standard’s consulting neurologist stated that the plaintiff’s headache quantifications are “not necessarily” correlated with the amounts previously reported.” The Court noted that the consulting neurologist did not come close to saying that the plaintiff’s disability was caused solely by a psychiatric dysfunction and that his migraines played no role in his depression.

Plaintiff’s Migraines Are Disabling In and Of Themselves

The Court observed from the letters sent by the plaintiff’s attending physicians adequately established that the migraines are disabling by themselves. Standard have conceded that such a finding would have entitled the plaintiff to the requested additional benefits under the Plan.

District Court’s Conclusion

The Court, upon consideration, ruled that none of Standard’s legal arguments in the action are found to be persuasive. As such, the Court denied Standard’s motion for summary judgment. The Court however, regarded the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as a motion for trial and judgment on the Administrative Record and ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to additional benefits under beyond the 24 month limitation.

Comments (4)

  • Lonnie,

    I do understand your question, and with the limited information I have, all I can say is to review the language of the policy and make sure what is being held out in any correspondence from Standard is in accordance with the policy language.

    Stephen Jessup Oct 31, 2013  #4

  • Not sure you understand my situation. STD paid for 90 days. At the end of 90 days Std ended then my son began receiving LTD benefits. There were no overlapping STD and LTD payments. Standard is now offsetting the full amount of his STD benefits against his ongoing LTD benefits. My interpretation is that the minute LTD benefits became payable, we were automatically in an overpayment status, due to prior STD benefits?

    By the way we were just notified that his LTD benefits are being suspended. May need to call you.

    Lonnie Oct 30, 2013  #3

  • Lonnie,

    ERISA governed group disability policies are written to only allow the insured to collect a certain percentage of their pre-disability income. Usually the amount is 60%. Any money received above and beyond that will trigger an offset, the most common being Social Security disability. However, if STD benefits were still being paid when the LTD benefit became payable, then the STD benefit would most likely be an offset under the policy. Review of the LTD policy language for Other Income Benefits will confirm.

    Stephen Jessup Oct 29, 2013  #2

  • My son had 2 Group insurance policies. STD and LTD. STD paid for 90 days. Then LTD benefits began. His crippling injury occured in 2007. He is still receiving his LTD benefit. He is classified as disabled from any occupation by the ALJ. We recently discovered that Standard did an offset of the STD benefits against his LTD benefit. My understanding is that offsets / deductible income only were triggered when you were receiving simultaneous benefits. According to Standard’s explanation, the minute LTD benefits became payable, the STD benefits became an offset. Any ideas?

    Lonnie Oct 28, 2013  #1

Leave a comment or ask us a question

Questions About Hiring Us

Do you help Standard claimants nationwide?

We represent Standard clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a Standard disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Standard. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by Standard.

How do you help Standard claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Standard long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with Standard:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

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   *****

Michael C.

Dell & Schaefer is very easy to work with. My attorney gave me guidance with obtaining medical support that the disability insurance companies were looking for. Alex, always kept in contact to let me know what’s going on with the case. Alex always kept me informed of my option and how he thought to proceed. I never even met my Alex in person but felt he always had my best well being in mind.

In the time of my case I worked with three other attorneys who were not as personable as Dell & Schaefer. I had let my attorney go and had a week to file an appeal and Alex took on my case.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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