Can Unum Deny My LTD Benefits After Paying For 15 Years?
In the case of Michael J. Christoff v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum), plaintiff was a partner in the firm of Spencer Stuart. He was a high-level executive, generating one to two million dollars a year in revenue, “developing a network of contacts, constant availability to clients, and extensive travel.” In November 2001, Plaintiff became disabled due to severe fibromyalgia and received long term disability (LTD) benefits.
Through the years, Unum conducted periodic reviews of Plaintiff’s medical records and on occasion, subjected him to an independent medical exam (IME). Unum continued to find him disabled from working in his regular occupation according to the terms of his Unum plan. After paying him for 15 years, Unum terminated Plaintiff’s LTD benefits.
Plaintiff appealed the termination of benefits and when that appeal was denied, he filed this ERISA lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He raised several issues concerning the medical review of his files and ways in which Unum abused its discretion.
The August 18, 2016 determination that Plaintiff was still disabled was based on a statement by Plaintiff submitted in March 2016. Additionally, a June 2016 report by a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) concluded that the job requirements of Plaintiff’s regular occupation had not changed in the intervening years. After the roundtable discussion, Dr. Antaki reported “that improvement in Christoff’s condition was not expected and recommended as ‘next steps’ that Christoff’s records be updated in one year.”
Just days later, on August 25, 2016, a new review began when the same VRC changed the physical demands of Plaintiff’s occupation to “sedentary” with only occasional demands to walk and determined that “only occasional” travel would be required, ‘likely done locally and by vehicle.’ She did not define “local.”
Dr. Antaki was given this new job description and Unum hired other physicians to conduct a medical file review. In November 2016, another IME was done.
Although the opinions of Plaintiff’s treating physicians had not changed, and all still believed he could not work, Unum’s reviewing physicians thought otherwise and determined that after all the years of receiving disability, without much change in his condition, on June 15, 2017, Unum notified Plaintiff it upheld its decision to terminate his LTD benefits. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed this ERISA lawsuit.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota agreed with Plaintiff that Unum abused its discretion when it terminated his LTD benefits and ordered Unum to reinstate benefits, pay prejudgment interest from the date of the termination until the date of the court order, and to pay attorneys’ fees and costs.
Although Plaintiff raised a number of issues in the Court, the Court was concerned with the timing of the termination, Unum’s change in the Plaintiff’s occupation, and its analysis of the medical evidence.
Timing of the Termination
The Court asked the parties to provide briefing to answer the question of, “What prompted Unum’s most recent decision to re-evaluate Christoff’s disability status?” Unum had determined on August 18, 2016, that Plaintiff was still disabled, yet opened another review just days later.
The best answer Unum could come up with is that a new worker was likely assigned to the file and decided to revisit the decision. The Court commented that, “While this does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing, it bolsters the Court’s conclusion, based on the entire record before it, that Unum’s process was indeed arbitrary and capricious.”
The Change in Plaintiff’s Occupation
The Court agreed that Unum could interpret Plaintiff’s own occupation as it is normally performed in the national economy, instead of how the tasks are performed for the specific employer. But, Unum did abuse its discretion by “arbitrarily changing the level of physical demand without any substantial evidence, or even any reasoning beyond one VCR’s flat assertion that it would be reasonable to change it.”
The Court continued, finding that “the balance of the medical evidence overwhelmingly shows that Unum’s evaluators ignored the seriousness of Christoff’s limitations and that he would be unable to perform any occupation on a full time, regular basis.”
Unum’s Analysis of the Medical Evidence
The Court concluded that Unum abused its discretion in “relying heavily on its independent reviewers’ opinions and in-house physician’s review of the record in concluding that Christoff was not disabled under the terms of the LTD plan.”
The Court acknowledged that ERISA does not require more weight to be given to the opinions of treating physicians, but Unum’s own manual says that deference must be given to treating physicians. Here, according to the court, Plaintiff’s “medical records are extensive, detailed and consistent. This does not come down to only an abuse of discretion in weighing evidence, it also involves misstating the record… Unum’s interpretation of the records fabricated conflict and inconsistency where none existed… Unum’s in-house doctor ignored information unfavorable to the termination decision.”
The Court concluded, “Unum’s selective presentation of evidence to its reviewers and disregard for the adamant opinions of Christoff’s doctors leads the Court to conclude that it was an abuse of discretion.”
Court Orders Payment of Past Due Benefits, Reinstatement of the Policy and Attorneys’ Fees
In a case such as this, where there are no meaningful questions of fact, remand serves no purpose. Plus, the parties agreed there was no need for further proceedings and the Court found “that there would be nothing gained by remanding the matter. The Court awards Christoff the LTD benefits past due and orders Unum to continue his benefits so long as he qualifies under the Plan.”
The Court also ordered Unum to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs finding that such an award “will have a beneficial deterrent effect in preventing Unum from abusing its discretion in future cases.”
This case was not handled by our office, but if you have been receiving LTD benefits for many years and are concerned about having your benefits terminated, or if you have any questions about your claim for disabilitybenefits, contact one of our attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.
Read more about Unum lawsuits on this page.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Get Your Unum Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Unum Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Unum Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Q: Does UNUM periodically review Group Long Term Disability Insurance claims/payments? For example, do they verify medical eligibility every five or ten years?
Q: My group long term disability insurance allows me to work part time up to 20% of my pre-disability earnings without affecting my benefit. If I take advantage of this, will Unum use this to deny my benefit?
After appeal filed by Attorney Jay Symonds, UNUM overturned previous denial of long term disability benefits for South Carolina Nurse
Unum Overturns Original Decision to Deny Benefits to Disabled Account Manager Following Appeal Submitted by Dell Disability Lawyers Appeals Team
After appeal filed by Attorney Jay Symonds, UNUM overturned its previous denial of long term disability benefits for Colorado Plumber
Court Rules Plaintiff's Medical Records Was Replete With Evidence Supporting Claim of MS & Was Not A Pre-Existing Condition
After paying for 13 years Unum Denies Disability Benefits to Woman with Lyme Disease and Endometriosis
Inexperienced Lawyer Handles Unum Disability Lawsuit and Fails to Provide Evidence to Support Occupational Argument
Massachusetts court overturns Unum's decision to terminate disability benefits after paying for nearly ten years
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.