Reliance Erred in Denying Disability Benefits When Physical Conditions Caused Disability

Patti Okuno was an art director with a clothing company when she developed a number of various symptoms, including extreme headaches, abdominal problems, vertigo and memory loss. She was diagnosed with narcolepsy, Crohn’s disease and Sjogren’s syndrome. Her medical records indicated that she also suffered with anxiety and depression.

Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Reliance), both the payer of benefits and plan administrator, awarded her short term disability benefits, agreeing that she was disabled from working in her own occupation. After 12 months, the definition of disability changed and in order to receive long term disability benefits, she was required to be disabled from any occupation. The disability policy also had a provision that only provided 12 months of benefits if the total disability was “caused by or contributed to by a mental or nervous disorder.”

Reliance denied Okuno’s application for long term disability benefits on several grounds, ultimately claiming her anxiety and depression were mental disorders that disqualified her from receiving disability benefits past the 12 months they had already paid her. After Okuno exhausted her administrative appeals, she filed this ERISA lawsuit in the Ohio federal District Court. The Court agreed with Reliance and Okuno appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with Okuna that her physical ailments “are disabling when considered apart from mental component” and remanded for the District Court to evaluate how her physical ailments impacted “her performance of any occupation.”

The Mental or Nervous Disorders Limitation

The Circuit Court adopted decisions of other circuits that interpret the mental or nervous disorders limitations to apply only “when the claimant’s physical disability was insufficient to render him totally disabled.” The standard is “whether the mental disability is a but-for cause of the total disability.” Reliance argued that it applied this standard when denying Okuna long term benefits. The Circuit Court disagreed, finding that that “assertion is not supported by the administrative record.”

The Court noted that the burden of proof was not on the plaintiff, but on Reliance to “show that the exclusion on which it based denial of benefits, the Mental and Nervous Disorder Limitation applies in this case.” After applying the “but-for” inquiry, the Court found that “an application is not appropriately denied on the basis that a mental or nervous disorder ‘contributes to’ a disabling condition; rather, the effect of an applicant’s physical ailments must be considered separately to satisfy the requirement that review be reasoned and deliberate.” Since Reliance had not considered Okuna’s physical ailments separately from the mental and nervous disorders component, the decision was not “rational.” The Court reversed the decision denying her benefits on this ground.

Reliance Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously in Finding Plaintiff Was Not Physically Disabled

Reliance erred in several ways when evaluating Okuna’s physical disabilities:

· It relied exclusively on the use of file reviews by physicians it employed. File reviews are “questionable” when used to deny benefits where the claim has a mental illness component. Mental health evaluations are based on subjective symptoms and the evaluation depends on a personal interview and spending time with the claimant. Although Okuna did not base her application on a mental or nervous disorder, that was the basis of Reliance denying her claim; thus, an independent medical exam should have been conducted.

· The reviewing physicians did not have the relevant expertise in the specific field of medicine at issue. Further, none of them even interviewed the treating physicians. Reliance denied Okuna benefits based on a mental health component, but did not have her records reviewed by a mental health expert.

· Reliance arbitrarily rejected the opinions of the treating physicians without explaining why.

The Remedy

Okuna requested remand for a determination of “how her disability affects her performance of any occupation.” The Court concluded that was the appropriate remedy and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

This case was not handled by our firm, but we believe it is instructive for those struggling with both physical ailments with perhaps a mental or nervous disorder. If you need help with a similar matter, contact our 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   *****

Michael F.

Having had several lung surgeries including a wedge resection, lobe removal and pleurodesis as well as MAC lung disease, I was diagnosed with stage vi (end stage) COPD in October 2012. With my lung function at 23% it was becoming very difficult to manage my daily life let alone continue working in my management role at a large healthcare company. After meeting with my primary physician and my pulmonologist, it was agreed that I should stop working and submit a claim for disability. I was 52 at the time. My short term disability plan with Mutual of Omaha paid my claim for 3 months at which time it was converted to my long term disability plan with no issues. I continued to collect my LTD benefit from February 2013 until November 20th 2014 when I received a letter saying I could return to my previous position and there was nothing in my medical records to indicate disability. I was shocked to say the least, as my condition is chronic and progressive and in fact my condition had continued to decline. I didn’t know what to do and knew I did not have the knowledge or experience to appeal their decision. I was very afraid as we depended on this income to pay our bills, that’s why I held the policy for many years, to protect my family. I want to add that I applied for and was approved for Social Security disability benefits shortly after diagnosis.

I immediately started to search for attorneys that handle disability claims and found literally hundreds that handled SSDI claims, but few that handled employer/private policies. I found Dell & Schaefer and filled out their quick online form and almost immediately received a reply from Gregory Dell (yes, an actual person responded!) who let me know that he asked Rachel Alters to call me. I don’t think it was more than a half hour before I received a call from her. I immediately felt a sense of relief as she explained the process and what she would be doing for me.

From that day forward, I have been met with OUTSTANDING customer service from Rachel Alters and Kathleen Bordes. Any time I reached out with questions or concerns they were very responsive and always left me feeling satisfied that I had the best in my corner. The process took many months and a lot of leg work on Rachel and Kathleen’s part. When I was finally sent a draft of the appeal, I completely understood why it takes so long. The level of detail was unbelievable. I actually feel like I better understand my disease after reading it! The appeal was filed timely and my denial was overturned very quickly. When I learned it was overturned, I have to admit I had tears in my eyes. I want to add, that even if the appeal didn’t have the positive outcome that it did, I would feel exactly the same about the exceptional job done on my case. I’m not sure I can ever truly express how grateful I am, and how blessed I feel to have found Dell & Schaefer and especially Rachel and Kathleen!

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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