Reliance Termination of Benefits Is Upheld When Evidence Was Conflicting
In Karen Gammon v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Reliance), Plaintiff worked for Cape Cod Hospital for 23 years as a medical transcriptionist when she stopped working due to pain from sciatica. She applied for total long-term disability (LTD) benefits through her employer’s insurance provider, Reliance.
Plaintiff claimed that sitting for more than 20 minutes at a time caused her excruciating low back pain. She also claimed that she took narcotics for pain relief and could not drive. She submitted a statement from her treating physician which supported her claim. Reliance determined that she was unable to perform the material duties of her regular occupation and approved her claim for LTD benefits.
According to the policy, after 36 months of receiving disability benefits, the definition of total disability changed and required the person receiving benefits to prove they were unable to perform the material duties of any occupation. A specific clause of the policy stated that at that time, “We consider the Insured Totally Disabled if due to an Injury or Sickness he or she is capable of only performing the material duties on a part-time basis or part of the material duties on a Full-time basis.”
Plaintiff received LTD benefits from November 2012 to July 28, 2016, when Reliance determined she could work and terminated her benefits. She appealed and when she had exhausted her administrative remedies, she filed this ERISA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Reliance’s termination of her benefits was arbitrary and capricious.
Plaintiff presented several medical opinions supporting her claim. She primarily relied on a report from her consulting physician, Dr. Birbiglia, who examined her on November 29, 2016, and concluded that Plaintiff was unable to sit or stand for 20 minutes, had memory problems likely associated with her pain medications, and had bad migraines that could last up to 20 days at a time. The doctor listed 19 medications Plaintiff was taking. He concluded that, “At this time, in my opinion, she is totally disabled from any gainful employment.”
Reliance commissioned a third-party vendor, Dr. Polanco, board-certified in Occupational Medicine, to review Plaintiff’s medical records. He concluded that she did have some limitations, but that she could work in a “sedentary level of work capacity.”
Reliance also conducted video surveillance over three consecutive days and concluded that Plaintiff’s activities did not support her claims. She was seen driving, shopping, carrying full shopping bags, and leaving her home in the morning and not returning until evening.
Plaintiff’s application for disability benefits through the Social Security Administration was granted. Both sides relied on this approval to support their positions. The Court found the SSDI decision “murky.”
The District Court found it a close call but ruled in favor of Reliance, concluding, “There is evidence in the record to support both the contention that Ms. Gammon is fully disabled physically and that she is not. Under these circumstances, where I review Reliance Standard’s decision under a deferential standard, I will grant Reliance Standard’s motion for summary judgment because its determination, while not inevitable, was based on substantial evidence in the record.”
Plaintiff Objected to the Opinion of Dr. Polanco
Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Polanco failed to review the report of Dr. Birbiglia. The Court disagreed and noted that in Dr. Polanco’s report, he specifically listed Dr. Birbiglia’s report and medical records as ones he had reviewed.
Plaintiff also complained that Reliance and Dr. Polanco ignored Dr. Birbiglia’s medical records from 2018 examinations that she submitted during her administrative appeal.
The Court explained that the issue was whether Reliance properly terminated her benefits in July 2016 and the appeal was in January 2017. Dr. Polanco’s 2018 examinations would not be relevant. Besides, she claimed she submitted them with her appeal which would have been impossible since the appeal was in 2017.
The Video Surveillance
Plaintiff objected to the video surveillance and claimed it did not support Reliance’s termination of her LTD benefits. The video showed:
- Day one: She and her husband left home at 9:30 a.m. with her husband driving. They went to her doctor’s appointment, shopping, and to a restaurant for lunch.
- Day two: She left home at about 9:30 a.m. and drove herself to a doctor’s appointment, then ran errands, going to the Dollar Tree and Home Good stores returning home about 2:30 p.m.
- Day three: The surveillance did not see her leave her home, but she arrived at her doctor’s office at about 9:30 a.m. driving her car by herself. She then drove to CVS and was seen shopping at several different stores. She even tried on dresses. She was seen carrying four shopping bags and a box all at one time. They lost track of her around 2:19 p.m.
The Court found that the “surveillance contradicts Ms. Gammon’s asserted limitations.” It also called into question Dr. Birbiglia’s report that she was unable to drive, sit or stand for more than 20 minutes.
The Court noted that the contradictions did not necessarily mean Plaintiff was able to work full-time job, but also noted that “the fact that it contradicts her assertions does not advance her position and adds credibility to Reliance Standard’s position that she is not disabled within the meaning of the policy.”
The Court’s Final Conclusion
The Court noted that its job was not to determine “which side is right.” The Court’s job was to determine if Reliance’s conclusion that the Plaintiff could work was “reasonable and supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.”
The Court held that, “the record shows conflicting evidence about Ms. Gammon’s capacity to work. Under an abuse of discretion standard, this type of conflicting record supports summary judgment for Reliance Standard… Reliance Standard’s determination was not inevitable, but it was solidly grounded.” The decision to terminate benefits “is supported by a reasonable reading of the record as a whole.”
This case was not handled by our office, but we believe in can be instructive for those who are appealing the termination of their LTD benefits. If you have questions about this case, or about any aspect of your claim for either short-term disability benefits or LTD benefits, contact one of our attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.
Read more about Reliance Standard disability lawsuits and back pain disability insurance claims. Also see our Q&A section for Disability Company Video Surveillance.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Reliance Standard Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Reliance Standard Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Reliance Standard Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Reliance Standard denied my LTD benefits because COVID-19 limited my ability to provide proof of continued disability.
Reliance Standard cut off my LTD benefits claiming I'm fit enough to work even though I'm more sick than before.
I was receiving LTD from Reliance Standard due to breast cancer until they suddenly denied me my benefits.
Reliance Standard never answers or returns my calls, has not provided me my benefits, and falsely claims I never provided necessary paperwork.
The appeals process with Reliance Standard is very frustrating. I'm not sure how to get an answer from them.
Reliance Standard is trying to reduce my LTD benefits because of once-a-month work in the military reserve.
Q: Do I have to provide additional proof of my disability that's specifically requested by Reliance Standard?
Q: If I'm not receiving the SSDI benefits for my children from Reliance Standard due to custody, should my SSDI benefits increase?
Reliance Standard overturned its previous denial of long term disability benefits for Texas Retail Store Manager
Reliance Standard overturns decision to deny long-term disability benefits to Paediatrician with Ovarian Cancer
Reliance Standard Reinstates Benefits for Former Employee of Parent Company, Delphi Financial, Following Successful Appeal
Reliance Standard Overturns Denial of Benefits on Appeal After Claiming It Failed to Receive Medical Records
After sending claimant to a psychiatric IME, Reliance Standard realizes its decision to deny benefits was incorrect
Reliance's Termination of Disability Benefits was Arbitrary and Capricious When it Discounted Supporting Medical Evidence Without Reason
District Court Holds That Reliance Standard Did Not Properly Consider Whether Traveling Nurse Could Perform The Material Duties Of Her Regular Occupation
Reviews from Our Clients
Very satisfied with the work of this team. Took well care of my case and took all the necessary time to be responsive and attentive when I had questions. Guided me through recovery and returning to normalcy. All thanks to Jason & Tabitha, thank you!
I’m extremely satisfied with the experience I have had with this firm from day one. The lawyer who has handled my case, Alex, is very efficient and attentive to all my questions and concerns. They are always aware of how my case has gone and they care about my health. I feel optimistic with them because they are very attentive during the process of my claim. I would not hesitate to recommend families and friends if in any situation they need their services. Kathleen as well has been very well and assisted me with this case. I highly appreciate everything they have done for me.
It’s unfortunate when disability insurance companies come after older disabled policyholders just to help their bottom line. It can be a living nightmare the damage they can do to a family. Dell Disability Lawyers are polite, understanding and knowledgeable. They call you back and answer any question you have no matter how unimportant it can be. The amount of stress they took off of myself and family was incalculable. I recommend them highly to take care of any disability case whether it be filing for benefits or reversing a claim decision. They are outstanding.
I could not have been happier or more appreciative of the hard work they performed on my behalf. I was well briefed on my case and it was closed in a timely manner with a financially successful resolution.
Mr. Symonds and Sonia as well as everyone else we have worked with throughout this process have been very helpful, professional and caring to our situation. We are very thankful to have this great team on our side.
Without them my LTD company was dropping my plan with me still suffering from my accident, even with doctor’s statements I’m still disabled. The LTD company didn’t want to advance my policy to the next stage of years of pay. Dell Disability Lawyers saved my policy, and helped to enforce the LTD company’s own policy (for its policy holder, me) that I would be covered still under the LTD policy I had paid for at my previous job, when my accident occurred. These lawyers know what they are doing and can help you too. LTD companies will try to drop you when you still need coverage just because they don’t want to pay on your policy anymore. Don’t let them break contract with ya because they are trying to get out of it. Hit em with legal action to ensure the continuation of your policy you paid for. Dell Disability worked very well for me and continue to do so.
I was denied long term disability benefits from The Hartford after being on it for years. I found Dell Disability Lawyers after doing research online. In a matter of days they responded and explained to me everything that would be done. Dell Disability Lawyers were able to settle my suit against The Hartford very quickly and responded to me quickly. I would definitely recommend this team of lawyers for anyone that is fighting for their disability insurance.
I have had nothing but a great experience with Dell Disability Law Firm. Mr. Alex Palamara and his team went above and beyond my expectations. They will respond to emails and phone calls in a timely manner. Thank you once again for taking my case.
This law firm is the best so far. MetLife denied me two times, they appealed two times for me and they won of course. So if you are on disability and want a chance at winning your case use this firm Dell disability lawyers, kind courteous understanding and they get the job done. You won’t be disappointed.