Sun Life Disability Claim and SunLife Ignores Medical Information

An Indiana Federal Judge recently ruled partially in favor of a claimant who was denied Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits by Sun Life. In the December 2012 ruling in the ERISA Disability Lawsuit, the Court found that Sun Life needed to review and properly address the medical opinion of one of the claimant’s treating physicians. This physician’s review and opinion were in stark contrast to the final opinion and decision of Sun Life. As such, the Court’s decision still leaves hope that the claimant will be able to receive long term disability benefits.

Medical History and the LTD Claim

The claimant previously worked as a Sales Specialist at Teachers Credit Union. As an employee of Teachers Credit Union, the claimant was provided coverage under both a short term and a long term disability plan. After a long history of epilepsy, the claimant began experiencing an increased frequency of seizures in May 2009. A few months later in July 2009, the claimant suffered a seizure while driving which resulted in a car accident. After this incident, the claimant did not return to work.

The claimant applied for and received short-term disability benefits from her employer. However, when she applied for long-term disability benefits with Sun Life, she was denied. In its first decision to deny benefits, Sun Life reviewed the medical records and opinions of the claimant’s treating physicians. To justify its position to deny benefits, Sun Life noted that an Attending Physician’s Statement completed by one of her physicians did not restrict the claimant from walking, standing, bending, sitting, etc. Using this lack of restrictions, Sun Life concluded that the claimant could perform the duties of her occupation. The Claimant Appealed.

In the Claimant’s appeal of Sun Life’s initial decision to deny benefits, the claimant submitted additional evidence which included a vocational report by another treating physician, Dr. Blankenship. In his report, Dr. Blankenship noted that walking, sitting, standing, bending, etc., were not the issues. The issue was the inability to predict seizures and the issues related to having a seizure. Dr. Blankenship concluded that the claimant would not be a reliable worker. Furthermore, Dr. Blankenship noted that the claimant experienced difficulty with memory and word finding. Dr. Blankenship concluded that this would prevent the claimant from performing her prior occupation.

Sun Life was unmoved. In a letter dated November 16, 2010, Sun Life again denied the claim for long term disability benefits. In this letter, Sun Life stated that it had reviewed and considered the newly submitted evidence. Furthermore, Sun Life stated that it had an independent records review conducted by an additional physician. This physician concluded that the claimant was capable of full-time work. This report was then submitted to a vocational consultant who determined that the claimant could perform the material duties of her prior occupation. With this information, Sun Life again denied her claim.

ERISA Lawsuit Filed

With her administrative remedies exhausted, the claimant’s only avenue for benefits was an ERISA disability lawsuit. In her complaint, the claimant contended that Sun Life’s decision was arbitrary and capricious because Sun Life failed to consider and discuss the report of her vocational expert, Dr. Blankenship.

The Court agreed. While the Court noted that Sun Life did not need to address every piece of evidence that was contained in the claimant’s medical records, it should have, however, addressed Dr. Blankenship’s relevant and contrary report. Sun Life had failed to mention the report in its denial letter. Furthermore, Sun Life’s independent medical reviewer and vocational expert each failed to even mention Dr. Blankenship’s contrary opinion.

The Court noted that the “focus of the arbitrary and capricious standard is to ensure that the plan administrator’s reasons for denial ‘meet ERISA’s requirement that specific and understandable reasons for a denial be communicated to the claimant.'” The Court continued that “(e)ven when records are based on subjective complaints, Defendant must still explain the reasons for dismissing those complaints.” The Court concluded that because Sun Life “failed to address Dr. Blankenship’s relevant and contrary report, Defendant’s decision is arbitrary and capricious.”

Unfortunately for the claimant, the Court did not conclude that Dr. Blankenship’s report required that Sun Life find her to be disabled. The Court merely ruled that Sun Life must “address and explain why it accepts or rejects the report in light of the evidence in this case.” So while the claimant might have won a battle, she still might ultimately lose the war.

Although our firm did not handle this case, we handle many like it throughout the country. Please contact us, the disability attorneys at Attorneys Dell & Schaefer , Chartered, for a free consultation and to discuss your disability claim.

For Sun Life Disability Insurance Reviews, Complaints, Denied Claims & Attorney Help click here.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

Leave a comment or ask us a question

FAQ

Do you work in my state?

Yes. We are a national disability insurance law firm that is available to represent you regardless of where you live in the United States. We have partner lawyers in every state and we have filed lawsuits in most federal courts nationwide. Our disability lawyers represent disability claimants at all stages of a claim for disability insurance benefits. There is nothing that our lawyers have not seen in the disability insurance world.

What are your fees?

Since we represent disability insurance claimants at different stages of a disability insurance claim we offer a variety of different fee options. We understand that claimants living on disability insurance benefits have a limited source of income; therefore we always try to work with the claimant to make our attorney fees as affordable as possible.

The three available fee options are a contingency fee agreement (no attorney fee or cost unless we make a recovery), hourly fee or fixed flat rate.

In every case we provide each client with a written fee agreement detailing the terms and conditions. We always offer a free initial phone consultation and we appreciate the opportunity to work with you in obtaining payment of your disability insurance benefits.

Do I have to come to your office to work with your law firm?

No. For purposes of efficiency and to reduce expenses for our clients we have found that 99% of our clients prefer to communicate via telephone, e-mail, fax, GoToMeeting.com sessions, or Skype. If you prefer an initial in-person meeting please let us know. A disability company will never require you to come to their office and similarly we are set up so that we handle your entire claim without the need for you to come to our office.

How can I contact you?

When you call us during normal business hours you will immediately speak with a disability attorney. We can be reached at 800-682-8331 or by email. Lawyer and staff must return all client calls same day. Client emails are usually replied to within the same business day and seem to be the preferred and most efficient method of communication for most clients.

Reviews   *****

Mr. & Mrs. S

You work with many people throughout your life, but few people touch your life in such a positive way beyond the settlement. We truly felt that Cesar cares about the people Dell & Schaefer serves. We may not cross paths again but we will always pray that the work you do continues to be successful on many levels. It is obvious that you also take your work to heart and we choose the right person to be our attorney.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

Request a free legal consultation: Call 800-682-8331 or Email Us