Oregon Judge orders Standard Insurance Company to pay disability insurance benefits beyond the 24 month mental disorder limitation
In James F. Kitterman Vs Standard Insurance Company and Standard Select Trust Insurance Plans, the plaintiff, through his disability attorney, brought an ERISA action against the Standard Insurance Company (Standard) seeking to recover long term disability insurance benefits wrongfully denied under the terms of a group insurance plan (the Plan) issued by The Standard Insurance Company.
This case is a victory for disability claimants and addresses an issue that is very common among thousands of claimants seeking disability benefits.
The Facts of the Case against Standard Insurance Company
The plaintiff Dr. Kitterman suffered from a long history of migraines and depression. He applied for disability insurance benefits with Standard and listed the causes for his inability to work as depression, migraines and anxiety. Standard approved the plaintiff’s claim and provided the plaintiff with monthly disability payments from March 2005 until March 2007.
On March of 2007, Standard terminated the plaintiff’s disability benefits claiming that the 24 month “Mental Disorder” limitation in the plaintiff’s policy applied to his claim. The limitation provided:
Mental Disorder: Payment of LTD Benefits is limited to 24 months for each period of Disability caused or contributed to by a Mental Disorder.
“Mental Disorder means a mental, emotional or behavioral disorder.”
Judicial Review by the District Court
The plaintiff argued that that mental disorder limitation provision is ambiguous. Standard argued that there are two fatal flaws in the plaintiff’s argument because:
- To find an ambiguity would require the Court to ignore the fact that the plaintiff’s major depression is disabling without regard to his migraines and mistakenly treat it as a mixed condition matter.
- Even if the limitation is ambiguous, it does not relieve the Court of its obligation to review the record and determine if the plaintiff is in fact disabled under the Plan.
District Court’s Ruling
The court disagreed with Standard’s contention mentioned above. The Court ruled that the Mental Disorder limitation provision of the Plan is ambiguous. Second, the Court argued that the matter at hand is a mixed-condition matter as the Administrative Record indicated that the plaintiff’s migraines are a cause of his depression. The court also ruled that the plaintiff is indeed disabled under the Plan and is entitled to more benefits. In addition, the Court concluded that the migraines are disabling in and of themselves.
Mental Disorder Limitation Is Ambiguous
The Court held that ambiguities in insurance contracts are construed against the insurance company under the rule known as the “doctrine of contra proferentum.” The doctrine require the Court to take a reasonable interpretation of the ambiguity, in this case the phrase ‘mental disorder’, as not to include ‘mental’ conditions resulting from ‘physical’ disorders.
As such, if the plaintiff’s migraines caused his depression, the limitation does not apply and plaintiff is entitled to additional benefits.
Plaintiff’s Migraines, a Cause of Plaintiff’s Depression
The court noted that three (3) of the plaintiff’s attending physicians provided Standard with their medical opinion after Standard sent the plaintiff a notice stating that it intended to terminate the plaintiff’s disability benefits after two years based on the Mental Disorder limitation.
On February 22nd 2007, plaintiff’s treating neurologist, wrote:
Mr. Kitterman has not one but two disabling conditions his chronic refractory depression and his frequent recurrent migraine headaches which wreaked havoc with his dermatology practice in past years. Despite our best therapeutic attempts, we have not been able to reign in the headaches. He currently carries a diagnosis of chronic daily migraine, greater than 15 days of migraine per month. Under almost any criteria that I know, this is disabling itself.
On March 5th 2007, the plaintiff’s treating psychiatrist wrote:
As noted by Hubert Leonard, MD, in his letter of February 22, 2007, Dr. Kitterman’s migraines are severe enough to justify his inability to continue his practice as a physician”¦.Let me be clear. The severity of Dr. Kitterman’s depression is related to his inability to be a physician. The current severity of his depression is the result of his inability to continue with his chosen career. Despite aggressive treatment of his migraines, he continues to be impaired. This would be problematic even if he was not experiencing depression in response to the dramatic changes in his life.
The court observed that Standard largely relied on their medical consultants who reviewed plaintiff’s medical records. The court also noted that Standard’s consulting neurologist stated that the plaintiff’s headache quantifications are “not necessarily” correlated with the amounts previously reported.” The Court noted that the consulting neurologist did not come close to saying that the plaintiff’s disability was caused solely by a psychiatric dysfunction and that his migraines played no role in his depression.
Plaintiff’s Migraines Are Disabling In and Of Themselves
The Court observed from the letters sent by the plaintiff’s attending physicians adequately established that the migraines are disabling by themselves. Standard have conceded that such a finding would have entitled the plaintiff to the requested additional benefits under the Plan.
District Court’s Conclusion
The Court, upon consideration, ruled that none of Standard’s legal arguments in the action are found to be persuasive. As such, the Court denied Standard’s motion for summary judgment. The Court however, regarded the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as a motion for trial and judgment on the Administrative Record and ruled that the plaintiff is entitled to additional benefits under beyond the 24 month limitation.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Standard Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Standard Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Standard Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Standard is one of, if not the worse, company in the industry Standard hasn't approved or denied my claim in over a year. They keep promising to look at it 'next week'
The Standard will threaten to withhold your pay until you sign every document that they send you. The worst part is when they consider back payment for SSDI benefits
Q: Why can my employer hold my disability check after The Standard sends it to them? Can I file a grievance with them?
Q: Is there any case law in which a state government employee LTD plan decided to drop the 24 month mental health limitation? Has there been any success against a state government and Standard using ADA Title I (employee) and 3 (insurance company) from a discrimination basis?
Can My Insurance Company Terminate My Disability Benefits After 24 Months if My Mental Nervous Disorder Contributes to But is Not The Sole Cause of My Disability?
Standard overturns decision to deny disabled Project Manager long-term disability insurance benefits after first Appeal
Another long term disability claim is reinstated after Disability Attorney Alexander Palamara successfully argues The Standard mishandled preexisting condition investigation
California Federal Judge Orders Standard Insurance Company to Pay Disability Benefits to Teacher with Lyme Disease
Claimant is Ordered to Pay Attorney Fees to Standard for Failing to Exhaust Her Administrative Remedies
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.