Reliance’s Termination of Disability Benefits was Arbitrary and Capricious When it Discounted Supporting Medical Evidence Without Reason

In Leo Noga v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Reliance), Plaintiff, a financial advisor with Fulton Financial, stopped working on February 27, 2015. At the time, he was covered under a disability insurance policy issued by Reliance. The terms of the policy granted Reliance the discretion to determine benefit eligibility. Those covered must submit satisfactory proof of total disability in order to qualify for long term disability (LTD) benefits.

Total disability as defined by the policy means that as a result of an injury or sickness, the insured “cannot perform the material duties of his/her Regular Occupation.” The Regular Occupation is defined as the occupation the insured “is routinely performing when Total Disability begins.”

Although Plaintiff’s job as a financial advisor with Fulton was sedentary, it also required him to stand or walk for brief periods and required him to drive to client meetings. He applied for total disability benefits based on the diagnoses of neurogenic muscular atrophy, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and hypertension. He had “leg weakness” and he reported to Reliance that “I cannot drive to work, can’t stand, walking limited.”

On August 25, 2015, Reliance approved Plaintiff’s claim for total disability benefits. The approval was based on Plaintiff’s medical records that were reviewed by its in-house medical reviewer, Nurse Finnegan. In addition, Reliance management reviewed “this matter” and agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to total disability benefits.

On August 15, 2017, Plaintiffs file was referred for review to another member of Reliance’s medical staff, Nurse Moore. She recommended that Reliance obtain pharmacy records and “medical records from all actively treating providers.”

The additional records were reviewed by Nurse Vicho, who noted Plaintiff suffered from “persistent diabetic neuropathy on lower legs along with contained painful left shoulder following rotator cuff repair. Co-morbid with chronic fatigue, poor endurance and obesity.”

Nurse Moore requested an independent medical examination (IME) which was conducted by Dr. Kline who concluded that Plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms and would be capable of gainful employment with some restrictions.

Based on Dr. Kline’s report, on December 27, 2017, Reliance notified Plaintiff that his total disability benefits were terminated. On January 2, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the termination and submitted additional medical records. In January and February 2018, he was evaluated by three treating physicians. All opined that Plaintiff could not work.

Reliance had another member of its medical staff, Nurse Toth, review the new medical records. She concluded that Plaintiff could not work due to his “multiple symptoms related to his neuropathy.” Based on this opinion, on March 22, 2018, the claims manager, Jamil Jackson, informed Plaintiff the decision to terminate benefits was overturned and benefits were reinstated effective December 27, 2017.

One day later, On March 23, 2018, Jackson requested two peer reviews of Plaintiff’s medical records. Dr. Brathwaite, Board Certified in Internal Medicine, issued an opinion on April 4, 2018, that Plaintiff’s diabetes was well-controlled, but she deferred giving an opinion on whether his diabetic peripheral neuropathy affected his ability to work.

Dr. Ayyar, Board Certified in Occupational Medicine, reviewed the medical file and concluded that although Plaintiff suffered from peripheral neuropathy and lower extremity neuromuscular dystrophy, the conditions were not severe enough to keep him from working.

Based on the peer review report by Dr. Ayyay, on May 18, 2018, Reliance informed Plaintiff that its prior decision to terminate benefits was appropriate. Plaintiff then filed an ERISA lawsuit.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that “After a thorough examination of the administrative record, I find that Reliance acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied [Plaintiff’s] disability benefits.”

Standard of Review: Arbitrary and Capricious

Relying on precedent, the Court noted that the deferential standard of review applied to this case which means the Court “is not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the defendants in determining eligibility for plan benefits.” But, “irregularities in the review process cast doubt on the administrator’s impartiality.” A few procedural “anomalies that suggest arbitrariness include:”

The Court stated that “In determining whether a benefits determination is arbitrary and capricious, the court must evaluate whether the determination was reasonable. After a review of the administrative record, I find Reliance’s benefits determination was not reasonable and therefore, was arbitrary and capricious.”

Evidence Supporting Court’s Decision that Reliance’s Denial was Arbitrary and Capricious

Reliance rejected, without reasons, “the opinions of its own nurses and claims manager regarding [Plaintiff’s] disability and rejected the opinion of [Plaintiff’s] treating physician and its nurses without explaining the justification.”

The Court was particularly concerned that just one day after Reliance relied on the conclusion of its employee, Nurse Toth, that Plaintiff could not function on any work level and reinstated his benefits, the claims manager sought another peer review. The Court inferred that “reliance was seeking an opinion that would allow them to overturn the decision to reinstate [Plaintiff’s] benefits.”

The Court concluded that the appropriate remedy for the arbitrary and capricious actions of Reliance was to retroactively award benefits and stated, “I find as of December 27, 2017, the date his benefits were terminated [Plaintiff] was totally disabled.”

The Court also ordered Reliance to pay prejudgment interest as part of Plaintiff’s benefit award.

This case was not handled by our office, but we think it can be helpful for those who have had their benefits terminated shortly after they were reinstated. If you have questions about this case, or any questions about your own disability claim, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer 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, 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   *****

Stephen M., Esq.

I cannot praise highly enough, the Dell & Schaefer law firm and, in particular, Steven Dell and Rachel Alters, the two Dell & Schaefer lawyers who handled my case. I had been a lawyer for more than 30 years when I became disabled. Steven and Rachel successfully obtained payments on each of two separate disability policies.

Throughout the process, they carefully explained to me each step along the way. I always understood my options and the pros and cons of each of them. They have vast experience in pursuing disability claims. As an example, they identified a first-rate expert who prepared a report supporting my case. Steven and Rachel have always responded promptly any time I had a question. Put simply, they are simply great attorneys who know this area of the law inside and out. I unhesitatingly recommend Dell & Schaefer for their professionalism, knowledge, accessibility, promptness and total devotion to their clients’ best interests.

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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