California Federal Judge Orders Standard Insurance Company to Pay Disability Benefits to Teacher with Lyme Disease
In Tisha Entz v. Standard Insurance Company, Plaintiff Entz was a classroom teacher in Victorville, California from 1997 until she became too ill to work following the end of the 2014-2015 school year on June 10, 2015. She applied for her disability insurance benefit provided by her employer. She alleged in her claim for disability insurance benefits that her first day off work should be August 14, 2015, the day teachers were required to return to work, which made this her first day of missed work.
Plaintiff had an extensive medical history including heart surgery in 1997, donation of a kidney to her father that same year, spinal discectomy in 2007, and various biopsies over the years. Her main complaints, leading to the claim for disability, began in late 2013. She began feeling ill and weak. She reported to her doctors, “fatigue, headaches, muscle cramping, night sweats, palpitations, and rash.” She told her doctor she had done some research and thought she had Lyme disease.
Between late 2013 and the time she filed a claim for disability insurance benefits in September 2015, she saw her primary care physician and many specialists. At one point, she was being treated by nine different doctors. An orthopedist said she could not work due to pain in her spine.
Her primary care doctor, Dr. Harris, sent Standard a statement on September 9, 2015, saying Plaintiff had a primary diagnosis of Lyme disease with a secondary diagnosis of Bartonella. Dr. Harris also listed diagnoses of Babesia, arthritis, headaches, abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, and other gastrointestinal issues.
Dr. Harris stated, Plaintiff’s “physical, mental, and cognitive limitations and work activity limitations” were “due to muscle and joint pain, headaches, gastrointestinal issues” and opined “she is unable to function at work. Needs to remain out.”
On October 16, 2015, a Standard representative interviewed Plaintiff. The representative asked Plaintiff to send Standard her medical records from all physicians who had treated her including test results. Standard ordered medical records, but asked only for those from Jun 1, 2014 to October 26, 2015.
A vocational analysis conducted by a Standard employee found Plaintiff could do “a light duty occupation.” Standard commissioned a paper review by a doctor who noted that while Plaintiff had “multiple somatic complaints” there was “no diagnoses that establish any clear etiology” and no disease process that should limit her work other than an “arthritic knee.”
On January 12, 2016, Standard sent Plaintiff a letter informing her it had denied her claim. The letter informed her she could appeal the denial, but it did not tell her that there were any contractual limitations. She filed an appeal including 150 pages of documents. She added a lengthy letter.
Standard had an outside physician vendor review Plaintiff’s medical records, asking him to evaluate the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease and to evaluate whether Plaintiff’s symptoms were supported by the medical evidence. On October 11, 2016, Standard again denied Plaintiff’s claim and said she had not supported her claim with medical evidence and that “chronic Lyme disease is not an evidence based Sickness/illness” and Standard did not accept that as a valid diagnosis.
Plaintiff then filed this ERISA lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court agreed with Plaintiff and ordered Standard to pay her total disability benefits for 24 months as required by her policy.
The Lawsuit was Timely Filed
Standard asked the Court to dismiss the case as untimely. According to the policy language, a lawsuit was required to be filed within three-years of the time “proof of loss is required to be furnished.” Standard argued that Plaintiff missed the deadline.
The Court pointed out that this was a case of apparently an ongoing disability, which changed the proof of loss date to 90 days after the end of the period for which the provider is allegedly liable. Applying that law, the three-year limitations period would expire on November 12, 2020. Since Plaintiff filed her lawsuit in March of 2019, her suit was not time-barred.
In addition, the Court found that Standard did not inform her of the application of the limitation period which was a breach of its fiduciary duty. This breach would not trigger the running of the limitations period. So, under this standard alone, the lawsuit would be considered timely.
Plaintiff Met Her Burden of Proving By a Preponderance of the Evidence That She was Totally Disabled
The Court noted that Standard’s review of Plaintiff’s claim, both initially and on appeal, “focused narrowly on discrediting Dr. Harris [Plaintiff’s primary care physician] as a quack, and casting doubt on Plaintiff’s reports that she had Lyme disease.” Standard’s doctor admitted Plaintiff had a number of “somatic complaints” but opined that “no objective identifiable disease process” limited her work. He “did not credibly opine on whether she could ‘with reasonable continuity’ perform the ‘Substantial and Material Acts’ necessary to being an elementary school teacher.’”
The Court gave “greater weight to the opinions of Plaintiff’s multiple treating physicians, each of whom witnessed and assessed her condition over a significant period of time.” The Court also commented that “Disability should have been measured by Plaintiffs functional capacity, given her symptoms, compared to her duties as a teacher…. Plaintiff’s primary treating physicians opined more often and more directly on her inability to work in any capacity. They relied on both their objective observations of Plaintiff’s comfort level as well as her own subjective reports.”
Ultimately, the Court concluded that, “Plaintiff has adequately established she was “totally disabled” under the terms of the Plan for the 24-month period. Accordingly, the Court REVERSES Standard’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s LTD benefits for the 24-month period and AWARDS Plaintiff $51,511.73 in disability benefits owed.”
This case was not handled by our office, but we believe it can be instructive to those struggling to obtain disability benefits from an insurance company that is searching for ways to issue a disability insurance claim denial. For more information about this case, or for assistance with your own claim, even if you have received a denied disability claim from your insurance company, and no matter where you live across the nation, contact us at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.
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.