Your Disability CompanyPrincipalOur Resolved Cases

Arizona Intellectual Property Paralegal Wins Principal LTD Insurance Appeal for POTS and Dysautonomia After Social Media Surveillance

Principal Life Insurance Company terminated our client’s long-term disability benefits for POTS and dysautonomia at the 24-month mark on the strength of a paper review by an internal-medicine doctor and a handful of social media photos showing her on a hike. That was the “evidence” that overrode two years of paid benefits, a TPN line, and a multi-system autoimmune illness her own treating physician described as deeply disabling.

Our client is an Intellectual Property Paralegal in Arizona who became unable to work due to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS), Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy, hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, post-COVID dysautonomia, mast cell activation syndrome, severe gastroparesis requiring total parenteral nutrition, and a constellation of cognitive, neurological, and gastrointestinal complications. The denial of her claim followed a familiar carrier playbook: a non-specialist file reviewer, a misrepresented phone call with the treating physician, and surveillance photos paraded as if they proved she could hold down a full-time job.

This is not the first time we have seen this pattern, and it will not be the last. Our office assembled a comprehensive Principal long-term disability appeal, and Principal reversed its decision in full. The appeal record laid out below contains several lessons every claimant facing a 24-month termination — and every claimant whose carrier is browsing their social media — should understand. If Principal or any other disability insurance company has terminated your benefits at the 24-month transition, denied you based on surveillance, or relied on a paper review by a doctor who never examined you, our long-term disability lawyers represent claimants nationwide on a no-fee-unless-we-win basis. Speak with one of our long-term disability attorneys for a free case review.

Schedule a Free Consultation

Our Lawyers Respond Today

By submitting this form you agree to receive SMS from Dell Disability Lawyers. Carrier and Data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. Reply STOP at any time to end messaging or Reply HELP for more information.

Table of contents

Why this case matters for every Principal claimant

Every claimant whose Principal Long Term Disability (LTD) claim is approaching the two-year mark should read this case carefully. The fact pattern is one of the most common termination scripts in the industry, and it is beatable. Five points matter most:

  • The 24-month definition change is the most predictable termination point in any group LTD claim. The day a claim hits the “own occupation” to “any occupation” transition, the carrier’s incentives flip. Principal commissioned a paper review and a social-media background check in the months leading up to the transition — not because the claimant’s condition had improved, but because the calendar had moved.
  • A paper review by an internal-medicine doctor is not a credible opinion on autoimmune autonomic disease. Principal’s reviewer, Dr. Janie C. Hendricks, is an internal-medicine physician. She never examined our client. She never observed a syncope episode, a TPN infusion, or one of the daily abnormal movements our client experiences as a result of metoclopramide-induced tardive dyskinesia. Yet her file review — declaring “no clear evidence of autonomic failure” — was the foundation Principal used to terminate the claim.
  • Social-media surveillance is not the same as work capacity. Principal’s “activities background check” pulled photos of our client paddle boarding, hiking, and wall climbing across the prior year. Those photos became the centerpiece of the denial. They were never put in context. Our client had attempted to be active during brief periods of stabilization, only to crash afterwards. None of those photographs answered the question that actually mattered: can this person sit at a desk and produce billable patent-prosecution work for forty hours a week, every week?
  • Phone calls between an insurance company’s reviewer and your treating physician can be misrepresented in the denial letter. Principal’s denial letter summarized a call between Dr. Hendricks and our client’s primary care physician as a return-to-work endorsement. The treating physician later put it in writing that the summary was wrong — that the claimant was not functionally improved, that home IV antibiotics and parenteral nutrition were ongoing, and that if asked directly whether benefits should stop, the answer would have been a resounding “no.”
  • The cognitive demands of a skilled occupation are independent of the physical demands. Our client’s position required precise patent-prosecution work — managing US Patent and Trademark Office and Foreign Associate deadlines, drafting responses, running weekly docket meetings. Her neuropsychological profile showed profound nonverbal-memory and executive-function impairment. Even if her body could tolerate sitting at a desk, her mind could not produce the work. That is the case Principal’s file reviewer never engaged with.

Two years of TPN, dysautonomia, and a body under siege

Our client stopped working less than a year into her position as an Intellectual Property Paralegal at Innovators Legal, after she was hospitalized with severe nausea, vomiting, functional dyspepsia, and post-cholecystectomy syndrome. Principal initially approved her LTD claim. Over the following two years, the underlying picture clarified into a multi-system illness no one diagnosis could capture.

The diagnoses that piled up

By the time of the appeal, our client’s treatment record across multiple specialty clinics — including Mayo Clinic, the Metrodora Institute, and the Center for Complex Neurology — documented:

  • Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) (ICD-10 G90.A) with autonomic testing showing a heart-rate increase from 48 bpm to 205 bpm on standing
  • Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (ICD-10 G90.8) — a rare acquired autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the autonomic nervous system, producing widespread autonomic failure
  • Post-COVID dysautonomia (ICD-10 U09.9) with persistent multi-system dysfunction
  • Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (ICD-10 Q79.62) with a Beighton score of 9 of 9 for joint hypermobility, multiple joint dislocations including jaw, shoulders, elbows, and knees, and hyperextensible skin with atrophic scarring
  • Median Arcuate Ligament Syndrome (ICD-10 I77.4) status post celiac ganglion resection, with extensive abdominal adhesions on subsequent CT imaging
  • Severe gastroparesis (ICD-10 K31.84) — delayed stomach emptying — requiring 100% dependence on Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN), the medical term for IV nutrition delivered directly into the bloodstream because the digestive tract can no longer reliably absorb food
  • Recurrent diverticulitis (ICD-10 K57.32) requiring multiple courses of home IV antibiotics, with referral to colorectal surgery for colon resection
  • Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) (ICD-10 D89.40) diagnosed at the Metrodora Institute
  • Small Fiber Neuropathy (ICD-10 G62.89) with reduced pinprick sensation across the toes and distal feet
  • Tardive Dyskinesia (ICD-10 G24.01) — involuntary abnormal movements affecting the face and arms, attributed to metoclopramide treatment for nausea, now treated with Austedo
  • Major Neurocognitive Disorder (ICD-10 F02.81) with profound nonverbal-memory and executive-function impairment
  • Generalized Anxiety Disorder, recurrent Major Depressive Disorder, and PTSD diagnosed under DSM-5-TR criteria (ICD-10 F41.1, F33.9, and F43.10 respectively)

The medical literature increasingly recognizes that this cluster — POTS, EDS, MCAS, and severe gastrointestinal dysfunction — tends to travel together. Peer-reviewed studies have documented the high prevalence of gastrointestinal dysfunction in POTS patients, including delayed gastric emptying and abnormal motility, and the overlap between mast cell activation syndrome, POTS, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Our client’s case is not an outlier; it is a textbook presentation of a syndrome that is increasingly seen, and increasingly disabling, in young women.

POTS gastroparesis Principal disability denial

What an ordinary day actually looked like

By the time Principal terminated the claim, our client was experiencing a minimum of one fainting episode per week related to her dysautonomia. She had abandoned a gym membership after she could not tolerate even light walking. She had recently dislocated her right shoulder in a ground-level fall and was awaiting imaging to determine whether she had torn her rotator cuff. She was experiencing daily abnormal movements affecting her face and arms. Her vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea had progressed to the point that she had lost ten pounds in a single week. She was — and remained — almost entirely dependent on parenteral nutrition for caloric intake.

This was the medical record Principal had in front of it when it terminated the claim.

Principal’s denial: a paper review, social media photos, and a phone call that wasn’t what they said it was

Principal built its denial on three pillars. None of them survived scrutiny.

The paper review by an internal-medicine doctor

Principal sent the claim file to Dr. Janie C. Hendricks, MD, an internal-medicine physician, for what the industry calls a “paper review” or “file review” — a desk evaluation in which the reviewer reaches conclusions about a claimant’s functional capacity without ever examining the person. Dr. Hendricks concluded that our client could perform the physical responsibilities of a Paralegal because, in her view, there was a supposed lack of objective findings and “no clear evidence of autonomic failure.”

That conclusion was untenable on its face. Our client’s autonomic testing had captured a heart-rate increase consistent with POTS. A board-certified neurologist at the Metrodora Institute had confirmed that she met the diagnostic criteria for Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy. Her CT imaging had documented pancolonic diverticulosis with two separate sites of diverticulitis. Her neurological examination had shown reduced pinprick sensation across the toes and distal feet. Her laboratory work had documented elevated ALT, leukocytes, alkaline phosphatase, creatinine, and prothrombin time, with low hemoglobin, hematocrit, and red blood cell count. The objective evidence was extensive. Dr. Hendricks did not engage with it.

Equally important, Principal’s policy did not actually require an “overwhelming amount of objective evidence” to qualify for benefits. The disability definition turns on whether the claimant can perform the substantial and material duties of her occupation — not on whether a paper reviewer is satisfied with the imaging library. Carriers routinely impose an objective-evidence threshold the policy itself does not contain. The appeal does not have to litigate inside that frame, and ours did not.

The social-media “activities background check”

Principal’s denial leaned heavily on what its claim notes describe as an “activities background check.” In plain English, that is a search of social-media accounts and other public sources for any photo or post that suggests physical activity. The check turned up images of our client paddle boarding, hiking, and wall climbing during the year leading up to the termination.

Principal then handed those images to its file reviewer as if they were dispositive. They were not. The treating primary care physician put it in writing in a follow-up clarification:

“Dr. Hendricks was the one stating the patient was ‘much better’ since starting parenteral nutrition over the summer, and the basis for this claim was that pt had posted a few pictures of hiking and paddle boarding online — because these snapshots apparently equate to being healthy enough to hold a full-time job.”

The treating physician went on to document that our client had tried being more active during stable periods — including a gym membership the previous year — but could not tolerate even light walking workouts and ultimately canceled the membership. She then articulated our client’s broader frustration directly: “She feels deeply betrayed that her handful of social media posts trying these other activities over the last 2 years were prioritized over her overwhelming posts about her continued physical, mental, and emotional struggles.”

This is the recurring failure of disability surveillance evidence: snapshots cannot tell you what happened the next day. They cannot show the migraine, the syncope episode, the day spent on the couch unable to keep down water. They cannot answer whether a person is reliable enough to hold a job. They are a static record of a person trying.

The phone call with the treating physician — and what was actually said

Principal’s most damaging move was its account of a phone call between its file reviewer and our client’s primary care physician. The denial letter summarized that call this way:

“Due to your physical activities as well as your improvements of conditions, they determined that you are in a position where you would be able to return to working full time.”

The treating physician disagreed. In a written clarification submitted with the appeal, she described what had actually happened on the call: she had been pressed to concede that, compared to a year earlier when our client was constantly displacing nasojejunal tubes and getting almost no nutrition, she was “overall better.” She conceded that point reluctantly. She emphasized that our client was still actively undergoing multiple treatments, including home IV antibiotics that very week for recurrent diverticulitis, and that parenteral nutrition was not a long-term solution. She made clear that she had no recent Mayo Clinic notes confirming the gastric pacer-trial issues Principal’s reviewer was asserting. And she closed with one sentence the denial letter omitted entirely:

“If asked directly whether I think this patient should stop getting disability benefits altogether, my answer would have been a resounding ‘no.’”

That sentence alone, in writing, contradicted the foundation of Principal’s denial. As attorney Stephen Jessup wrote in the appeal: “Dr. Hendricks’s opinion, and recap of her conversation with [the treating physician], is largely inconsistent with [the treating physician’s] actual opinion on [our client’s] lack of improvement and limited functionality.”

What Principal’s reviewer couldn’t do, we did

Principal never had our client examined. The denial rested entirely on a desk review of paperwork and a curated batch of photos. Our appeal package answered that with four pillars of evidence Principal could not match, anchored by independent functional and cognitive testing.

The treating physician’s written clarification

The treating primary care physician’s written follow-up was the appeal’s opening salvo. It corrected Principal’s account of the phone call. It documented the reality of our client’s daily life — the weekly fainting episodes, the canceled gym membership, the ongoing IV antibiotics, the awaiting orthopedic imaging for a possible torn rotator cuff, the dependence on TPN, the tardive dyskinesia, the “deeply betrayed” reaction to having her social media posts weaponized. The clarification put the treating provider’s actual opinion in writing, in her own words, with no room for a paper reviewer to spin it.

The Functional Capacity Evaluation

A Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) is a standardized, in-person test of a person’s physical work tolerances — sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, fine manipulation, and overall endurance over a sustained period. It is the gold-standard objective measurement of work capacity that a paper review cannot replicate.

Our client underwent an FCE with a licensed physical therapist. The findings were unambiguous: she could not sustain even sedentary work over a typical workday or workweek. The evaluating therapist concluded that:

“Based on this evaluation, [our client] would have difficulties sustaining typical Light or Sedentary level work for an 8-hour day/40-hour week or another full-time schedule due to reduced tolerances for sitting, standing and/or walking and overall reduced endurance.”

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles defines sedentary work as exerting up to ten pounds of force occasionally and sitting most of the time, with brief periods of walking and standing. Our client’s tested tolerances did not reach even that floor — placing her below the Less Than Sedentary threshold, the industry term for a person who cannot sustain even desk-based work over a normal workday. That is what Principal’s desk reviewer never measured, and what Principal’s policy requires the carrier to consider.

The Cognitive Functional Assessment

Patent-prosecution paralegal work is not desk work in the generic sense. It requires sustained executive function: managing USPTO and Foreign Associate deadlines, drafting responses to office actions, filing Information Disclosure Statements, running weekly docket meetings, and tracking dozens of overlapping client matters across foreign and domestic jurisdictions. A paralegal who misses a docket date can cost the client patent rights. The cognitive demands of the role are non-negotiable.

To address those demands directly, our client underwent a comprehensive Cognitive Functional Assessment with a board-certified clinical psychologist. The evaluation required two days of testing because of the extensive medical history and because, during both sessions, our client was on her bed or couch due to a flare-up. The findings showed:

  • Profound impairment in nonverbal intelligence, severely affecting spatial reasoning and visual processing
  • Profound impairment in composite memory functioning, particularly nonverbal memory, severely limiting her ability to encode and recall visual-spatial information
  • Marked deficits in executive functioning — abstract concept formation, rule acquisition, and consistent task strategy — on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, with failure to complete any categories and 65 trials required to attempt a single category
  • Marked impairment in attention and concentration with severe difficulty maintaining focus during everyday tasks
  • Slowed cognitive processing, taking two to four times longer than previously, with progressive deterioration through the day
  • Severe word-finding difficulties and inability to retain reading material without constant re-reading

The psychologist’s diagnostic impression was that our client had undergone a significant neurocognitive decline attributable to her multi-system illness, and that her premorbid intelligence had been within the high-average to superior range — an assessment supported by a 4.0 GPA in her bachelor’s program and a documented record of professional achievement in patent prosecution. In plain terms: this is a person whose cognitive baseline was once well above average and who now cannot reliably complete the executive-function tasks that define her occupation. The opinion was that she could not perform her occupation as an Intellectual Property Paralegal at this time.

The specialist evidence Dr. Hendricks ignored

Dr. Hendricks, an internist, opined that there was “no clear evidence of autonomic failure.” The appeal record made clear that conclusion was sustainable only if a person ignored the autonomic specialists who had actually evaluated our client. A board-certified neurologist specializing in dysautonomia at the Metrodora Institute had confirmed she met the criteria for Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy. The treating primary care physician had documented daily abnormal movements consistent with metoclopramide-induced tardive dyskinesia and weekly syncope episodes. The MRI of her cervical spine had shown moderate C3-C4 canal stenosis and cord deformity with possible cord edema. Her Epstein-Barr virus levels were elevated. Her diagnostic picture was extensive, specialist-driven, and directly contradicted the file reviewer’s headline conclusion.

An Attending Physician Statement completed by the treating primary care physician also confirmed that, on examination, our client showed decreased range of motion, reduced strength, fatigue, delayed gastric emptying on objective study, and abdominal CT scans with extensive adhesions. The treating physician opined that our client would have unscheduled interruptions of her work routine frequently, would miss work due to symptom exacerbations frequently, and would be an unreliable employee. That opinion came from a physician who had actually examined our client, repeatedly, over years.

Inside the 24-month definition change — and why “improvement” stories collapse

Principal’s policy follows the standard group LTD architecture: for the first two years of disability, the “own occupation” standard governs — the question is whether the claimant can perform the substantial and material duties of her own occupation. After that two-year window closes, the standard tightens to “any occupation” — whether the claimant can perform the duties of any occupation for which she is, or may reasonably become, qualified by education, training, or experience.

This 24-month definition change is the single most predictable termination point in any group long-term disability claim. Carriers know it is coming. They build claim-handling strategy around it. Surveillance often runs in the six to eight months before the transition. File reviews are commissioned shortly before the transition date. The denial letter goes out the moment the calendar permits.

The honest answer is: the claimant’s underlying condition has not improved. The carrier’s incentive structure has changed. The carrier needs a story to support termination, and the story almost always sounds the same — the claimant is “much better,” the records show “improvement,” the social-media photos show activity, the treating physician on a phone call “agreed” the claimant could return to some form of work. None of those statements are the same as a finding that the claimant has the sustained functional capacity to hold a real job.

Our client’s case illustrates how thin these “improvement” narratives are when pressed. Yes, she was better than her absolute worst point a year earlier — when she was constantly displacing NJ tubes and unable to absorb nutrition at all. That improvement was the product of intensive treatment: parenteral nutrition delivered intravenously, IV antibiotics for recurrent diverticulitis, specialist evaluations at multiple academic medical centers, and a long list of medications.

It was not a return-to-work narrative. It was a stabilization narrative. The two are not interchangeable, and an appeal that allows the carrier to blur the line will lose.

Principal reverses in full

Roughly three months after our office submitted the appeal package, Principal advised that it had overturned its denial of both the LTD claim and the Life Coverage During Disability claim. The carrier issued back benefits to our client, restored her ongoing monthly benefit, and continued the waiver of premium on her group life and AD&D coverage. Principal’s approval letter put it directly:

“We’re pleased to let you know we’ve overturned the denial of [our client’s] Long Term Disability (LTD) and Life Coverage During Disability (LCDD) benefits and the claims are now approved.”

Our office continues to manage the claim on her behalf to ensure Principal honors its ongoing obligations.

Frequently asked questions about Principal disability appeals

Can I appeal a Principal disability denial?

Yes. Every Principal LTD denial letter triggers a 180-day window to file an administrative appeal under ERISA, the federal law governing employer-sponsored disability benefits. The appeal is the most important — and the most time-sensitive — opportunity a denied claimant gets, because what the appeal record contains is what a federal court will eventually review if the denial is upheld.

What is the 24-month definition change in a Principal LTD policy?

Principal’s group LTD policies use a two-tier disability standard. For the first 24 months of benefits — the “own occupation period” — the question is whether the claimant can perform the substantial and material duties of her own occupation. After 24 months, the standard tightens to “any occupation” — whether the claimant can perform the duties of any occupation for which she is, or may reasonably become, qualified by education, training, or experience. The transition is the single most predictable termination point in any group LTD claim.

Can social media photos cause my disability claim to be denied?

Yes. Insurance companies routinely conduct “activities background checks” that pull photos, posts, and check-ins from public social-media accounts. Carriers then present curated images as if they prove sustained work capacity. Snapshots cannot establish what happened the next day, the next hour, or whether the claimant could maintain the same activity for forty hours a week. Claimants who post anything publicly should expect the carrier to weaponize it.

Does Principal require objective evidence to approve a long-term disability claim?

No. Principal’s disability definition turns on whether the claimant can perform the substantial and material duties of her occupation — not on whether the claim file contains a particular volume of imaging, lab results, or other objective findings. Carriers regularly impose an objective-evidence threshold the policy itself does not contain. A well-built appeal refuses to litigate inside that frame and quotes the policy language verbatim.

What is autoimmune autonomic ganglionopathy and is it disabling?

Autoimmune Autonomic Ganglionopathy (AAG) is a rare acquired autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks the autonomic nervous system, producing widespread autonomic failure. Symptoms can include severe orthostatic intolerance, gastrointestinal dysmotility, urinary retention, abnormal sweating, and recurrent syncope. AAG is highly disabling and frequently coexists with POTS, hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, mast cell activation syndrome, and post-COVID dysautonomia.

How long do I have to file a Principal disability appeal?

180 days from the date of Principal’s denial letter. The deadline is set by ERISA and by Principal’s policy. An appeal filed even one day late is generally rejected, and missing the deadline can also forfeit the right to file suit in federal court. Anyone facing a Principal denial should contact a long-term disability attorney as soon as possible to preserve every available right.

Get a free consultation with our long-term disability attorneys

As attorney Stephen Jessup wrote in closing the appeal: “There is sufficient objective evidence of physical and cognitive impairment that would prevent her from working.” Principal had no answer for that record once it was assembled.

If Principal Life Insurance Company has terminated your long-term disability benefits at the 24-month transition, denied your claim based on a paper review by a doctor who never examined you, used social-media surveillance against you, or relied on a phone call with your treating physician that misrepresents what was actually said, our long-term disability lawyers can help. The opportunity to fix the record on appeal is the most important — and the most time-sensitive — one a denied claimant gets. ERISA — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 — is the federal law that governs employer-sponsored disability benefits and requires every claimant to exhaust an administrative appeal before filing suit in federal court. Under ERISA’s claims procedure, the administrative appeal is the last chance to put evidence into the record before any potential federal-court litigation. What the appeal builds is what the federal court eventually reviews. Principal’s policy permits 180 days to appeal — that window closes faster than most claimants realize.

Our firm has been representing disability insurance claimants since 1979. We have helped tens of thousands of claimants nationwide and recovered over two billion dollars in disability benefits. We represent claimants in every state on a contingency-fee basis — no fee unless we recover benefits for you. Contact our office for a free consultation with one of our long-term disability insurance attorneys to discuss your Principal denial, the strength of your medical record, and the best path forward.

If you would like to read about how we have handled similar Principal terminations, the following resolved-case write-ups are a good place to start:

You can also learn more about our work on Principal Life Insurance Company disability claims, our approach to Principal disability lawsuits when appeals fail, and our condition-specific guidance for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome disability claimants facing carrier denials.

Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)