The Standard's Denial of LTD Benefits for Financial Planner Upheld by Ohio Court
The Plaintiff in Daniel M. Wehner v. Standard Insurance Company (Standard) was an independent financial planner who was insured under a Group Long Term Disability Insurance Policy (Plan). He obtained his policy through the Association for Independent and Franchise Professionals. The Plan was administered by the Standard Insurance Company.
The Plan provided short-term disability (STD) benefits and long-term disability (LTD) benefits for those who were totally or partially disabled from performing the material duties of their own occupation due to a physical disease injury, pregnancy, or mental disorder.
The material duties were defined as “the essential tasks, functions and operations, and the skills, abilities, knowledge, training and experience, generally required by employers from those engaged in a particular occupation that cannot be reasonably modified.”
On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits noting he suffered from back, leg, and spine pain in addition to headaches resulting from a hypoxic event. He also had ulcerative colitis. He submitted medical records from five treating physicians. Only one treating doctor submitted an Attending Physician’s Statement in which she opined that Plaintiff’s “ability to function had declined significantly due to uncontrolled pain.” The doctor also reported that Plaintiff could not concentrate and could not sit for more than 15 minutes.
On October 13, 2016, Standard informed Plaintiff it needed more information in order to determine his eligibility for LTD benefits. On December 12, 2016, and again on February 7, 2017, Plaintiff wrote letters to Standard emphasizing he was applying for LTD benefits based on his total disability, not just partial disability. Plaintiff also claimed he became disabled in March 2016.
Standard Evaluated the Medical Reports of Five Treating Physicians:
· Dr. Severyn, a pain management specialist, diagnosed Plaintiff with spinal stenosis of the lumbar region and indicated he suffered from post laminectomy syndrome.
· Dr. Viljoen, a neurosurgeon, discussed with Plaintiff the option of surgery which Plaintiff would think about and consider.
· Dr. Kurpita saw Plaintiff many times through 2015 and 2016 and is the physician who provided the Attending Physician’s Statement. Dr. Kurpita noted that Plaintiff reported severe headaches and prescribed medication. The doctor also noted the medication did not cause side effects and did not interfere with Plaintiff’s ability to perform activities of daily living.
· Doctor Lin, a neurologist, treated Plaintiff for his headaches. The doctor thought the headaches were due to hypoxia suffered by Plaintiff during a recent MRI. The doctor saw Plaintiff several times, and Plaintiff reported that his symptoms stayed the same and did not change from visit to visit.
· Dr. Scholl, gastroenterologist and hepatologist, treated patient for abdominal pain. On May 24, 2016, the doctor noted that Plaintiff was feeling better overall, but his abdominal symptoms worsened his back pain.
Standard Called in Reviewing Physicians to Evaluate the Medical Evidence
Dr. Carlson, a vocational consultant and board-certified physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, reviewed the medical file. She concluded that Plaintiff did suffer from pain due to his spinal fusions and diagnosis of spondylolisthesis, but that she did not believe he would have been precluded “from sedentary level work in the calendar year 2016.”
Dr. Carlson also reviewed Plaintiff’s Facebook account and found he had posts about “doing significant construction work around his house, as well as participating in hobbies and recreational activities such as fishing.” The doctor continued, “In my opinion, if an individual is precluded from doing sedentary level work, I would not anticipate that he would be able to do these other activities.”
Dr. Carlson also noted that Dr. Kurpita had not put any restrictions on Plaintiff. He could still drive a car and there was no impairment from any cognitive activities.
Based the medical evidence, on February 23, 2017, Standard denied Plaintiff’s claim for LTD benefits. Standard acknowledged that Plaintiff had documented chronic back pain and shoulder pain, but the records did not support a finding of disability. There were no restrictions on his ability to perform his sedentary job.
Plaintiff’s Administrative Appeal
On May 26, 2017, Plaintiff submitted medical records concerning should surgery in December 2016, letters from treating physicians and a functional capacity evaluation. He argued that his constant pain was severe enough to qualify him for total disability.
Plaintiff also argued that his Facebook posts merely showed he was trying to lead a healthy life. Besides, he said the gardening was light work that required no thinking and the construction project was done with the help of his wife and adult son.
Standard reviewed the medical records submitted and letters from treating physicians. Comments were that his headaches “are worsened by staring at computer screen,” or that his headaches “affect his ability to concentrate, make important decision, and create financial plans.”
Plaintiff also submitted a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). The physical therapist who conducted the exam concluded that the plaintiff was “limited in function consistent with lumbar radiculopathy.”
One of Standard’s reviewing physicians found that the medical records well-documented Plaintiff’s suffering from chronic low back pain, but that the pain should not limit his ability to perform the duties of his job. Another one found that although Plaintiff was precluded from working for the twelve weeks following his December 2016 spinal surgery, he could have otherwise performed his job duties. His claim for LTD benefits was denied.
Standard’s Denial of LTD Benefits Was Based on Substantial Evidence and Not Arbitrary and Capricious
On October 24, 2017, Standard denied Plaintiff’s appeal, so he filed this ERISA lawsuit. The Court carefully examined the administrative record and considered Plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that Standard’s decision denying LTD benefits was not arbitrary and capricious. The Court stated its reasons for each issue it resolved:
· Standard’s reliance on opinions of independent reviewing physicians was not arbitrary and capricious when Standard adequately explained its reasons for its decisions and also relied on objective evidence in making its decision.
· Standard did not act arbitrarily and capriciously by ignoring intellectual aspects of Plaintiff’s occupation when Plaintiff never argued that he was cognitively impaired. Plus, the independent reviewing physicians did consider those aspects of the medical records.
· Standard’s reliance on social media was not arbitrary and capricious.
· Standard did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when weighing the FCE because it gave a reasonable explanation for its decision.
· Standard did not “cherry-pick” the medical tests to rely on and explained why it made the choices it did.
The Court concluded that, “In sum, the Defendant did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it denied Plaintiff disability benefits.”
If you have questions about your own disability claim, contact one of our attorneys 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.