California Court Overturns Prudential Denial of Disability Benefits
In the case of Gallegos v. Prudential, a California Federal District in the Northern District of California entered an order instructing Prudential to reinstate the benefits to an insured suffering with Lupus. This ruling provides a plethora of useful information in arguing claims for disability stemming from Lupus, but also for any physical medical condition in which an insurance carrier argues a “lack of objective evidence” to support disability.
Prior to filing for disability Gallegos worked as a drug safety operations manager for a pharmaceuticals company in California. She initially filed a claim for disability due to severe headaches with associated altered vision, but was able to return to work after a brief period of short term disability. However, as luck would have it, within a few months of her return to work she had to undergo rotator cuff surgery, necessitating another disability claim. Following surgery and recovery she attempted to return to work, but after just six months she was forced to file another claim for disability due to persistent headaches and fatigue, which would later be diagnosed by her doctors as Lupus. Prudential initially approved her claim for short term disability benefits and then her claim for long term disability benefits after short term benefits ceased. However, her approval of her LTD claim was predicated on the results of her next office visit with her doctor. Once the records from the visit were received, Prudential had a paper file review of her claim performed by an outside doctor. Unsurprisingly, the opinion of the reviewing doctor resulted in the denial of Gallegos’ claim for LTD benefits.
In furtherance of appealing the denial of benefits, Gallegos underwent a Functional Capacity Examination, the results of which indicated she did not have the ability to perform the physical demands of her occupation. She then had her file reviewed by an independent Vocational Consultant, whose report provided additional support that based on her medical conditions and the demands of her pre-disability occupation Gallegos would not be able to meet the required demands of her occupation. Additionally, during the course of her first appeal, following an independent medical examination by the Social Security Administration that verified cognitive limitations stemming from her diagnosis of Lupus, Gallegos was awarded Social Security disability benefits.
In response to Gallegos’ appeal Prudential sent her file to be reviewed by two independent doctors (rheumatology and neurology) for the purposes of conducting additional paper reviews. Despite staunch support from her treating neurologist, Prudential’s reviewing neurologist found no evidence disability from a neurological viewpoint. The reviewing rheumatologist, having admitted she did not review the entire file, opined that she did not believe there was sufficient evidence to establish a diagnosis of Lupus. Prudential essentially ignored the information provided on appeal and instead relied on opinions of its two hired file review doctors to deny Gallegos’ appeal.
In response to the denial of her appeal, Gallegos availed herself of the voluntary appeal process and provided Prudential, amongst other medical records, with abnormal lab results, which objectively identified a positive test result for Lupus. The positive test results would certainly undermine the opinion of Prudential’s reviewing rheumatologist who had found no evidence to support a diagnosis of Lupus. Nevertheless, Prudential provided the updated medical information for review to the same two doctors who denied her first appeal. Even when faced with objective proof of the Lupus, Prudential’s doctors questioned the validity of the testing and held true to their initial opinions that there was no indication of medical restrictions and limitations that would necessitate disability.
Following the final denial of benefits Gallegos filed suit under ERISA. Fortunately for Gallegos the Judge saw her claim much differently than Prudential and overturned the denial of benefits. In rendering its opinion the Court noted several key factors as to why it believed Prudential was wrong in denying Gallegos’ benefit. The Court determined that while Prudential’s prior approval of disability did not shift the burden back to Prudential to provide proof as to why disability was no longer supported, the Court did find that the earlier decision to approve LTD benefits was relevant and Prudential’s failure to identify a significant change in Gallegos’ condition was a factor to be considered. The Court also noted that the consistent opinions from Gallegos’ treatment providers presented a persuasive case for disability and that Prudential had given no meaningful weight to their examinations and opinions. The Judge also stated that the FCE was not given proper consideration by Prudential’s doctors and that the findings of the examination were probative and deserving of “valued consideration” by Prudential. With regards to the test results indicating a diagnosis of Lupus and Prudential’s attempt to discredit same, the Court noted that while a lab test alone would not establish disability, when considered in conjunction with other evidence in Gallegos’ claim file – such as the FCE and opinions of her treatment providers – the Court found no basis for Prudential’s disregard of her symptoms as self-reported and denial of her claim. Furthermore, speaking as to the nature of Lupus, the Court added “Because Gallegos might be stable at various points does not mean that the debilitating symptoms will not be exacerbated if she return to work on a full time basis.”
This Court decision provides much valuable information in presenting disability claims resulting from Lupus and will hopefully serve as a gateway for more Courts scrutinizing and rejecting the tactics employed by insurance companies when denying disability insurance claims due to Lupus.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Submit a Strong Prudential Appeal Package
We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Prudential appeal.
Sue Prudential
We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Prudential.
Get Your Prudential Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Prudential Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Prudential Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Denied but Not Denied but I am Denied
California State Disabilty "OFFSET" never mentioned or outlined when enrolling for STD coverage.
Prudential terminated my LTD, so now I have no income
Reply
Prudential cancelled my policy amid COVID crisis
Reply
I was sold a policy that I cannot use and no one will show me the policy
Reply
Prudential verbally approved my claim and then sent me a denial letter
Reply
It would cost me more to fight Prudential than to let them get away with their games
Prudential told me I would have a decision today, and now the need another week. Guess what, I'm still broke
Reply
Q: I made a Short term disability claim with Prudential but they right away went to consider long term disability
Q: Prudential denied me STD due to a doctor who wrote personal things about me, like I still drive.
Q: Prudential is sending me to an IME but refuses to allow recording. Should I refuse to go to the IME?
Q: What can I do about my long term benefits that’s ending after 2 years?
Q: My mother paid many years for a long-term care policy. When she had to be put in an assisted care facility, Prudential won't pay. Do you accept cases like this?
Q: Can Prudential deny me if SSDI approves me?
Q: How does Prudential calculate attorney fees?
Q: Can I sue my PRUDENTIAL LTD for the cost of hiring a disability attorney to get my benefits reinstated?
Prudential Lump Sum Disability Policy Buyout Options
Is Exhaustion of Remedies Required before filing an ERISA Lawsuit?
What Should I Expect When Suing Prudential for a Disability Insurance Benefit Denial?
Do I need to disclose my disability insurance claim if I filed for bankruptcy?
Can I submit a long-term disability claim if my employment has been terminated?
How Much Time Does Prudential Have to Make A Determination On an ERISA Disability Appeal?
If I File A Short Term Disability Claim With My Carrier And My Claim Is Denied, Do I Also Need To File A Separate Long Term Disability Claim?
Can the disability company limit my disability benefits to 24 months if I have been diagnosed with depression as a result of my physical disability?
Prudential reverses decision to terminate LTD benefits of MRI Tech with Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis and degenerative Disc Disease
Engineer With Depression Wins Prudential LTD Appeal
Dell Disability Lawyers Win Disability Insurance Appeal Against Prudential for KPMG Employee
Lawyer Wins 24 Month Mental Nervous Prudential Disability Denial
Research Epidemiologist with chronic fatigue / ME wins LTD appeal against Prudential
JP Morgan Chase Financial Advisor With Cancer Wins Prudential Long Term Disability Appeal
Prudential Fails to Pay Long Term Disability Benefits of Claimant Suffering from Addison’s Disease
Successful Appeal Against Prudential Gets Breast Cancer Survivor Back on Claim for LTD Benefits
Reviews from Our Clients






