Sappi Company’s Difficult Definition of Disability is Not Illegal According to Minnesota Federal Court

In Anderson v. Sappi Fine Paper of North America, plaintiff worked for Sappi for 30 years as a carton line operator during which time she suffered continuously from chronic pain due to her club feet. Her job required her to stand for several hours a day. After she fractured her foot while on vacation, she quit work and filed a claim for disability asserting that due to her long-term feet and knee problems, she could no longer stand long enough each day to do her job. She was examined by several different specialists who did not say she could no longer work, but instead recommended Sappi provide her accommodations so she could work.

The plaintiff raised three separate issues in the Minnesota court: 1) Sappi erred in denying her claim; 2) Sappi had a conflict of interest since it was both the payor of benefits and gatekeeper as the one who decided who received benefits; and 3) Under Sappi’s definition of disability, no none could ever meet it.

Federal District Court Upheld Sappi’s Denial of Disability Benefits

Anderson claimed she was disabled from performing her job with Sappi and used the fact that the Social Security Administration had granted her disability benefits as support for her claim. The court noted that since the SSA used a different definition of disability, that fact was not relevant. It noted that even SSA’s award of benefits included the caveat that she could do sedentary work.

In upholding Sappi’s decision, the court stated: “Sappi was not tasked with weighing conflicting medical opinions. Absent from the record is any opinion from any physician that examined Anderson who determined that she was unable to work without an accommodation.” Since the medical evidence did not support her claim that she could not do her job, the court upheld Sappi’s denial of disability benefits.

Court Finds No Conflict of Interest

Anderson claimed Sappi had a conflict of interest since it was both the gatekeeper who decided who was granted benefits and the payor of those benefits. She alleged that this conflict caused them to arbitrarily deny her claim. The court noted that “the conflict of interest is readily apparent.” Even so, it deemed that is not enough. A claimant must show a “history of biased claims administration.” Claimant here was able to locate only one decision from “nearly a decade ago” to support her claim. That was simply not enough evidence to establish a history of bias.

Disability Definition That is “Exceedingly Difficult to Meet” Cannot be Rewritten by the Court

Sappi’s definition of disability according to its policy language is when someone is: “unable to engage in any occupation or perform any work for any kind of compensation of financial value.” The court expressed sympathy with the plaintiff who had persevered and worked in chronic pain for 30 years and who had “well-documented multiple medical conditions.”

But, despite her medical problems, the court upheld the contract language, holding that, “Although exceedingly difficult to meet, the law does not compel Sappi to have a more favorable definition of disabled; the law does not even require Sappi to have a plan at all.”

This case was not handled by our office, but it may provide claimants guidance when they want to pursue disability benefits but their medical records do not support their claim, and to those who have an issue regarding a conflict of interest with their employer who is also their insurer. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please contact any of our lawyers 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   *****

EH, M.D.

I am a physician with a long medical history including cancer, arthritis, peripheral vascular disease, and Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (formerly RSD). I expected to retire early. However, my health and work deteriorated rather rapidly. Suddenly I was no longer working and needed help negotiating my benefits. The first two attorneys I met were personally recommended. I soon learned that they had either limited or no experience with private LTD policies. I searched the internet for more information about Long Term Disability claims. The Dell & Schaefer website kept popping up with the answers to my questions. I liked both the text explanations and the videos. With nothing to lose, I requested a free consultation.

From the beginning, Attorney Steven Dell and legal assistant Merlin Bryan have been consistently honest, professional and patient. During my initial phone conversation with Steven Dell, it was clear that he understood both my medical conditions and my work situation. He had already read my LTD policies and was familiar with both the Unum and the Hartford insurance companies. Steven Dell is an excellent, thorough attorney. What does that mean? First, he knows what information is needed to submit a claim. Early on, he gave me a checklist of items he needed. At times, it felt like a part-time job, finding all of the financial, employment, and medical records he needed. Yet Steven Dell and Merlin Bryan were very patient whenever I had a health setback. They actually understood that folks with health problems have problems filling out paperwork. Second, he picked up the phone and contacted lawyers, human resources, personnel and insurance agents to keep the paperwork moving. Third, he is relentlessly thorough. I submitted hundreds of pages of paperwork. He actually seems to have read them! He double checked that dates, numbers and statements were accurate. He would not submit any paperwork until any discrepancies were discussed and resolved. At this time, two LTD claims have been approved and I have received my first benefits. I have nothing but respect and gratitude for this law firm. Thank you!

***** 5 stars based on 202 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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