Standard Insurance Company's denial of long-term disability benefits to an attorney is reversed by federal court
The case we are going to discuss here highlights one of the ways an insurance company attempts to justify discontinuance of benefits after they have begun paying them.
George Nevitt, a practicing attorney fell down a flight of stairs on June 19, 2001. His injuries were so severe, that The Standard Insurance Company (Standard), the company that provided his company’s employee welfare benefit plan, initially approved Nevitt’s claim for disability benefits. In April 2007, Standard terminated Nevitt’s coverage claiming that he no longer qualified because of the mental disorder limitation of the plan.
After Nevitt exhausted all of his administrative remedies he filed suit before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, requesting summary judgment. Standard responded by moving for summary judgment on their behalf. Nevitt responded by filing a cross motion for summary judgment, to which Standard responded by filing an additional motion for summary judgment. Nevitt then moved to strike Standard’s additional motion.
Let’s look at the background presented by the administrative record. After his fall, in June of 2001, Nevitt began to experience frequent migraine headaches, pain in his neck and both arms. His cognitive abilities were also impaired. In August, he saw his primary care physician, a neurologist and a physical therapist. He was forced to cut back the number of hours he worked and finally underwent an MRI in September. The MRI revealed that he had herniations on both the C-4 – C-5 and C-6 – C-7 discs as well as a deformation of his spinal cord. Additional damage was also apparent in the MRI.
On November 15, 2001, Nevitt filed a claim for partial disability benefits. He had not been with the legal firm for a full year yet, so Standard ensured that Nevitt did not have a pre-existing condition. Standard had an internal medicine consultant review his medical records. This doctor noted that no pre-existing condition was found and that Nevitt’s condition should gradually improve over time.
When Nevitt’s condition did not improve, his neurologist recommended that he consult a neurosurgeon. He did this in May of 2002. The neurosurgeon suggested that he needed surgery to repair the herniations and spondylitic spurring shown on the MRI. Nevitt was reluctant to undergo the surgery, so the neurosurgeon referred him to a board certified pain management and rehabilitation specialist.
In December of 2003, Nevitt stopped working entirely. An independent medical examiner checked him for his workman’s comp claim. The doctor that conducted the exam reported that he could return back to work if the duties of his job were modified. Nevitt went back to his neurosurgeon who again recommended surgery, and also referred Nevitt to a neuropsychologist who diagnosed him with post-concussive injuries, concluding that Nevitt’s cognitive impairment affected his ability to practice law. He noted that Nevitt was emotionally distressed which was affecting his cognitive abilities, and as a result, he recommended pharmacological treatment for depression.
Nine months later in August 2004, Standard ordered an independent medical examination. This doctor concluded that Nevitt had no neuropsychological issues that would limit his ability to work. However, his attending physician disagreed and continued to restrict him from working.
Another year passed. In August 2005, Standard asked a neurologist to review Nevitt’s records. This neurologist concluded that Nevitt was not disabled from practicing law and recommended follow-up treatment for Nevitt’s migraines. At the same time, Standard asked a psychiatrist to review Nevitt’s records. The psychiatrist concluded that he had suffered from major depression at times but he could return to work with continuing emotional support. His treating physician disagreed with this diagnosis, and continued to restrict him from returning to work.
In October 2006, Standard ordered an independent medical exam. This neurologist, after seeing Nevitt, concluded that Nevitt’s complaints were out of proportion to his injury and there was no reason why he could not perform a sedentary desk job without any restrictions.
Standard terminated Nevitt’s long-term disability benefits in April 2007. They stated that his benefits were limited to 24 months because anxiety and depression contributed to his disability. He appealed on October 12, 2007, citing his cervical pain, migraine headaches, and brain injury, which were independently disabling and were not subject to the mental disorder limitation. He provided affidavits from his attending physicians, a detailed account of his fall, a functional capacity evaluation and job simulation test as evidence of his disability not being related to a mental condition. The same claims specialist who had determined that he no longer qualified for long-term disability reviewed the additional material and upheld the termination.
The file was sent to Standard’s Administrative Review Unit for an independent review. Nevitt submitted additional documentation. One report from a neurologist stated that his migraines could be expected to cause him to miss 5 to 7 days of work every month. A second report from a vocational consultant stated that Nevitt was no longer able to practice law because of his limitations. Standard also submitted a neurologist’s report that disagreed, claiming that the migraine should only impair Nevitt for one or two days per occurrence, concluding he could not see how this would disable him from practicing law.
The Administrative Review Unit upheld Standard’s termination of benefits. They gave Nevitt copies of the medical records that were used to make its determination. In response, Nevitt underwent additional tests to address the concerns that Standard’s consulting physicians had expressed. The results of these tests were sent to the claims specialist for consideration. The specialist stated that the tests relayed no new information and the original decision to terminate was upheld.
In order to sort this matter out, the Court looked at several things. First, the Court had to evaluate the reasonableness of Standard’s determination in the light of the material recorded in the administrative record. To do this the Court had to determine whether the Court agreed with the claim administrator’s benefits denial decision.
The Court looked at the policy language, asking what had Standard promised in the policy? First, the policy stated that it covered disability which resulted from physical disease, injury, pregnancy, or mental disorder if the policyholder was unable to work within their “own occupation.” The policy stated that long-term benefits were limited to 24 months for “each period of continuous disability caused or contributed to by a mental disorder.” Included in mental disorders were things such as “depression or depressive disorders” and “anxiety and anxiety disorders.”
Nevitt argued that his condition did not fall under the clause for mental disorder because he was totally disabled apart from any mental problems that he might have. The Court agreed. When the Court reviewed the administrative record used at the time of the decision to terminate Nevitt’s long-term disability policy, the Court reached a different decision. They determined that the administrative record demonstrated at least three conditions, other than a mental disorder, that contributed to Nevitt’s disability. The medical records substantiated the continued probability of Nevitt’s missing work for at least 5 to 7 days per month, which is unacceptable in the practice of law.
Nevitt’s motion for summary judgment was granted on December 3, 2009. Standard was ordered to reinstate his long-term disability benefits.
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.