Court Remands to Sedgwick for Reevaluation of Its Denial of Claim for Disability Benefits
In Daniel T. Derichs v. AT&T Services, Inc., plaintiff, an employee of AT&T who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), applied for short-term disability benefits. The plan administrator, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick), denied Derichs’ claim. After exhausting his administrative appeals, Derichs filed this ERISA lawsuit.
At issue was the correct definition of total disability under the clause of the policy that read, “You are considered Totally Disabled when, because of illness or injury, you are unable to perform all of the essential functions of your job…” Specifically in question was whether the clause meant a claimant was disabled only if they could not perform “any” of their essential job duties, a definition proposed by Sedgwick, or disabled if they could perform some, but not all the essential functions of their job, as proposed by Plaintiff.
The Court held that the Plaintiff’s definition made the most sense and found Plaintiff would be disabled if he proved that “he was unable to perform any particular essential function of the job.” The Court remanded to Sedgwick with instructions to reevaluate Plaintiff’s claim using this definition and to do so within a reasonable time.
Court Determined Plaintiff’s Interpretation of “Unable to Perform all of the Essential Functions” of His Job Duties is Correct
The Court found the policy language ambiguous and noted that ambiguities in policy language are interpreted against the entity responsible for drafting the language at issue, in this case that was Sedgwick. After much analysis, and consideration of decisions made by other district and circuit courts, the Court determined that the inclusion of the specific language “essential functions” of the job meant that if defendant could not perform even one essential function, he would be unable to continue to perform the job as a whole and would therefore meet the definition of disabled. The Court noted that this definition is “more reasonable and more in keeping with the plan’s clear purpose of providing benefits to those who can no longer perform their jobs.”
Sedgwick Did Not Consider Plaintiff’s Disability Under the Correct Definition
Sedgwick argued that it evaluated Plaintiff’s claim under both definitions, including the one adopted by the Court. The Court disagreed for several reasons:
- Sedgwick never set forth the essential functions of Plaintiff’s job.
- Sedgwick did not directly address opinions from Plaintiff’s treating physicians that he could not perform his job duties.
On the record presented, the Court was unable to conclude that if the administrator had applied the correct standard, it would have come to the same conclusion. Ultimately, the Court held, “It is appropriate that plaintiff’s claim be remanded to the plan administrator for a new determination.”
This case was not handled by our office, but we thought it could be helpful to those who are fighting for their disability benefits against insurers who are using the wrong definition for disability as the term is used in the particular policy. If you have questions about this, or any other aspect of your disability claim, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free case consultation.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Sedgwick Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Sedgwick Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Sedgwick Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Sedgewich is the worst-immediate denial of all requests for treatment. Rubber stamps DENIED ALL RFA’s
Court Orders Sedgwick to Pay Disability Benefits to Claimant with Carpel Tunnel Syndrome Even though the Employer Offered Her Accommodations
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.