Unum Provident terminates disability benefits to woman with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) (Part I)

Unum Provident Reviews Approved Benefits to Assure Continuing Qualification

When Nancy Perryman stopped working on February 28, 1997 she was the Western Farm Bureau Insurance Company’s agency manager for metropolitan Phoenix and Northern Arizona. She supervised between 18 and 21 insurance agents who worked out of Western Farm Bureau’s various insurance offices. She’s earned around $300,000 each year in commissions, with average monthly earnings of almost $19,000 for the two years before she stopped working.

Perryman had spent her entire working career with Western Farm Bureau. She had begun working in the 1970s as a field agent and had worked her way up the ladder. Only when her chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) became unbearable did she stop working. She filed a claim for long-term disability benefits in April 1997, with Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company (currently known as UNUM), the long-term disability insurance company which had issued the policy to Western Farm Bureau.

Disability Insurance Attorney Begins Representing Client Before Disability Is Filed

Perryman had already retained counsel before she had to stop working. In March 1995, two years before she stopped working, she asked Dr. Clark Hansen, the naturopathic physician she had begun seeing in July, 1994, to send a letter summarizing his findings to her disability attorney. He did so stating his findings of 1) chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS), 2) anemia, and 3) Hashimoto’s thyroditis.

To support her claim, Perryman provided evidence from both Dr. Hansen and Dr. Jerry M. Fioramonti, who was a family practitioner with experience treating CFS. Both physicians clearly supported her disability from CFS. Both of these doctors had begun treating her in 1994 and had observed how her disease had grown progressively incapacitating. She continued to see both of these Arizona doctors until she chose to move to Texas in 1998.

Provident Approves Long-Term Disability Under “Own Occupation” Provision

Provident confirmed the existence of Perryman’s disability by asking her doctors to provide mental status, behavioral capacity and physical capacity reports. After reviewing this information, Provident reached the conclusion in January 1998 that she qualified under the “Own Occupation” provision of the disability insurance plan. The long-term disability insurance company made the payments retroactive to June 1, 1997. Between June 1, 1997 and May 31, 1999, Perryman was the beneficiary of a sizeable long-term disability check because she was no longer able to perform the duties of her “Own Occupation.”

Meanwhile, Provident kept a close eye on Perryman’s condition. A Provident employee interviewed her former supervisor on February 19, 1998. The supervisor confirmed that during the last four or five months before she stopped working, her memory had become so bad that he could discuss something with her in the morning and when he called back to discuss it later in the day, she had no recall of their previous conversation.

A different Provident employee wrote a file memo on June 19, 1998 that it appeared that the medical information supported Perryman’s continued disability, but that two things should be done to confirm her ongoing disability. 1) Perryman should be asked to complete a 14-day activity log and 2) Provident should order video disability surveillance.

Social Security Disability Benefits Are Approved

Meanwhile, Perryman had applied for Social Security Disability Benefits. As part of the screening process, the Arizona Department of Economic Security asked Dr. Hal Breen, a psychiatrist, to examine Perryman as part of her Social Security disability benefits qualification review. She saw him on August 28, 1997. During his mental status examination, he found no evidence to support Perryman’s claims of short-term memory loss or confusion. Instead, he found that her immediate, intermediate and distant recall was well within normal limits.

Dr. Breen felt her prognosis was good, if she could obtain effective treatment for her CFS. It was his conclusion that the allegations that Perryman suffered from confusion and short-term memory loss were untrue.

The mental capacities form for work-related activities which he prepared reported that Perryman had a “Fair: seriously limited, but not precluded” ability to deal with work stresses, a “Good: limited, but satisfactory” ability to deal with the public, an “Unlimited/very good” ability to follow work rules, relate to co-workers, use judgment, interact with supervisors, function independently, and maintain attention and concentration. He also noted that she had a “Good; limited but satisfactory” ability to understand, remember and carry out complex job instructions, and an “Unlimited/very good” ability to understand, remember and carry out simple and de-tailed job instructions. He also commented on the form that “Patient’s fatigue is unexplained by this exam. Not confused; no memory loss.”

Based on this report, her initial application for Social Security disability was denied. This decision was reversed on August 26, 1998, when a Social Security Administration administrative law judge found that new information confirmed that Perryman was entitled to disability benefits. Social Security set the date of her disability as February 28, 1997, the last day Perryman had worked. The basis of the decision was the fact that her combined problems with CFS and depression made it impossible for her to work on a “regular and consistent basis” and that her physical and mental limitations meant that she did not have “transferable skills to perform other work.”

When Perryman moved to Texas in 1998, she first visited Dr. Clark Craig. His office notes from April, 1998 indicated that he had ordered a thyroid-stimulating hormone test, which came back normal, ruling out continuing Hashimoto’s thyroditis. He still agreed with her previous diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome “with features of fibromyalgia.” He continued to assess Perryman as having CFS in a July 31, 1998 visit.

Provident Orders Video Surveillance

Provident hired International Claims Specialists to conduct surveillance on Perryman from July 26 through 28, 1998. One the first day, Perryman was seen leaving her home with the companionship of her elderly mother. They went to church, stopping for gas on the way and Perryman filled the tank. They also stopped briefly at a friend’s on the way home from church. The two women returned later that afternoon to the same house and visited for about two hours, before returning to Perryman’s home.

Over the next two days Perryman was seen only briefly. She never left home, and her mother only came by once. In total, she was seen walking, driving, putting gas in her car, carrying a potted plant and bending at the waist to pick up something.

Provident Terminates Long-Term Disability Benefits Under “Any Occupation” Provision of Plan

Provident was aware of the positive Social Security disability benefit decision, but when May 31, 1999 rolled around, Provident terminated Perryman’s long-term disability benefit payments, because the insurance company concluded that she was no longer disabled from working in “any occupation.”

The policy clearly stated that Perryman would be considered disabled from any occupation if due to sickness or injury she was unable to earn at least the “Any Occupation” income level of 80% of the index earnings from any occupation which she was reasonably fitted by education, training or experience to perform. Indexed earnings were, according to the policy, to be based on the Department of Labor’s consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers. In the “Any Occupation Period” was defined as the time span between Perryman’s qualifying for long-term disability benefits under the “Own Occupation” clause and the age of 65.

The policy also required Perryman to provide the insurance company with proof of her continuing loss, written evidence that could prove to Provident’s satisfaction that she was disabled and entitled to long-term disability monthly benefits under the “Any Occupation” clause.

What evidence did Provident use to reach this decision? It leaned heavily upon a March 1999 report generated by GENEX Services, Inc., a company owned by Unum Provident. The report drew the conclusion that Perryman’s new primary care physician, Dr. Sidney Shinkawa, had just passed on the opinions of prior physicians, thus they concluded her opinion was essentially meaningless. The report claimed that Dr. Shinkawa was not addressing Perryman’s CFS and Perryman exhibited an apparent lack of interest in meaningful activities.

Provident ordered a functional capacity evaluation (FCE). This was performed at HealthSound Industrial Rehabilitation Center on April 12, 1999. The examiner noted that Perryman was laboring by the end of testing to complete the activities. She was unable to complete the frequent lift test in a time frame that allowed the examiner to determine a frequency level for her. She also had problems with testing that required her to change positions quickly. The examiner found that she was able to walk for 12 minutes at 2 mph and that she had a normal aerobic capacity for someone of her age.

The physical capacities form the examiner filled out reported the following assessed abilities. Perryman could stand, walk, sit or drive for only 1/2 hour at a time. Over the course the entire 8-hour work day, she could be expected to tolerate standing, walking and driving for a total of two hours and sitting for a total of four hours. He stated that Perryman was able to lift something from the floor and bring it up over her head. She would be able to life and carry up to 20 lbs. and occasionally bend, twist, squat, kneel and reach.

Provident Orders In-House Medical Review.

Dr. E.C. Curtis, whose specialty at Provident was occupational medicine, reviewed Perryman’s claim. In his first report of May 12, 1999, he gave his opinion that Perryman appeared to be “quite capable of performing basic ADLs (activities of dailiy living).” In his opinion, the medical record was primarily a recital of what she had reported to her doctors. He found the findings that she had low grade fevers, intermittent swelling of her lymph nodes, etc. were not convincing evidence that she had CFS at all.

He felt that her reports of incapacitating fatigue seemed to be exaggerated when they were compared to the findings of the FCE. And he made it clear that he expected Perryman and her attending physician to argue that the test had been on one of her “good days” and that she would claim that she was “wiped out” for hours or days afterward.

He went on to address the FCE specifically, which stated that Perryman was capable of sedentary work. He claimed that much of the weakness seen during the exam could be explained by her lack of exercise over the last two years. He called it “de-conditioning.” He felt this might also be contributing to her blood pressure issues.

He claimed her chart failed to substantiate her concentration and short-term memory issues. He also stated that her fainting spells had not been independently verified. He pointed to recent lab results that failed to confirm her hypothyroidism. In his opinion, CFS wasn’t her problem at all. He opined that she really suffered from depression and this was the cause of her fatigue and inability to sleep. He also pointed to her recent divorce as the primary contributor to her reported problems with concentration and short-term memory.

He felt that Perryman’s depression had not been addressed adequately. He saw her problem primarily as a psychosocial issue where the long hours Perryman had been putting in before the onset of her symptoms had just been too much for her, and she had “understandably” become “tired of the struggle.” He accused her of developing a “disabled mind set.”

Ultimately, he concluded that Perryman just didn’t want to return to work and that she was seeing caregivers who seemed “less than inclined to encourage and facilitate” her abilities. Rather they were more inclined to support her disability. On top of this, he pointed to Perryman as “a claimant who reportedly has limited economic incentive to resume work.”

This report formed the primary grounds for Provident’s termination of Perryman’s disability benefits under the “Any Occupation” clause of the policy.

Disability Attorney Assists with Administrative Appeal.

Perryman’s disability attorney raised issues concerning the validity of Dr. Curtis’ report when Perryman filed her administrative appeal. He pointed to Dr. Fioramonti’s clinical notes, and Dr. Hansen’s statements. He also pointed to the testimonials that family, friends and former coworkers had supplied. Provident sent Perryman’s file back to Dr. Curtis for a second evaluation.

His second opinion, rendered on November 24, 1999 proceeded to claim that Dr. Fioramonti’s clinical notes from 1994 had failed to make a systematic listing of the items that are the accepted criteria for diagnosing chronic fatigue syndrome. He repeated his opinion that all the physician’s notes in Perryman’s files seemed to only recite or paraphrase what Perryman was telling them. He did not see them as independent observations. He gave no weight to the testimonials provided, for the same reason.

Dr. Curtis stated that no neuro-psychological testing had been ordered by Perryman’s physicians, proving to him that none of Perryman’s physicians had used the simple measures available to them, hinting at incompetence.

Dr. Curtis’s contension was not completely true. Perryman had gone to see Dr. J. Terry Wilkinson, a neurologist, whom Dr. Shinkawa recommended. In his notes from this June 16, 1999 visit, Dr. Wilkinson relayed the information that Perryman had shared with him. She had told him that she had felt constantly tired since 1994, although her symptoms waxed and waned. She reported that the Florinef she was taking to prevent her fainting spells, kept that problem under control. She also found that Prozac had helped with the symptoms of depression and possibly her symptoms of fatigue as well.

When Dr. Wilkinson went on to record his impressions, he stated that he didn’t find any “evidence of a primary neurological disorder” that could be causing the CFS or the orthostatic hypotension for which she was taking the Florinef. He concluded that Perryman’s memory issues were not the result of a true organic problem, but rather the result of being too tired to think clearly. He felt that the combination of Prozac and Florinef was improving her condition significantly.

Dr. Curtis considered Dr. Wilkinson’s report further confirmation, when compared with Dr. Breen’s earlier report in 1997, that Perryman’s short-term memory and inability to think were alleged difficulties, not real issues. He stated that while he recognized that CFS “has essentially no objective clinical findings,” individuals who have the condition can be assessed based on the functional abilities. He felt the scant objective evidence suggested that Perryman had enough functional capacity remaining to work in a job that required sedentary to light duties.

He realized that it would be difficult for Perryman to find work after having been out of the work force as long as she had been, but that if she had the least determination to do so, she could do so. He found no objective functional reason she should remain on disability instead of returning to the workplace.

Provident Orders In-House Transferable Skills Analysis (TSA)

Meanwhile, shortly after Provident terminated Perryman’s disability benefits, they asked in-house vocational rehabilitation consultant Pam Perdue to determine if there were any jobs that Perryman would be qualified to perform with her level of education, training and experience.

Purdue informed the disability insurance company in her first report, of May 26, 1999, that a number of possible positions existed: Special Agent at $615/week; Risk and Insurance Manager at $672/week; Insurance Office Manager at $536/week; Closer at $559/week; Brokerage Office Manager at variable salaries/week; and in-house on commission sales as long as the job was sedentary.

In her second report of December 28, 1999, Purdue added positions which would used Perryman’s insurance, sales and management experience; top marketing and sales, top administration, to claims and top underwriting positions. She noted that these executive positions correlated directly with many of the positions she had identified in her May 26 report.

Disability Attorney Secures Affidavit in Response to Physical Capacities Evaluation

Perryman’s disability attorney responded to the FCE by having his client prepare a sworn statement on October 24, 1999. Included in her statement was the following information:

At Provident’s request, I went to be evaluated at Healthsouth. I was only able to spend 13 minutes on the treadmill and then needed a 45 minute nap before I could continue any other exercises. Even though I did less than one hour of exercises while I was at Healthsouth, I was so exhausted that I spent the next four days in bed.

This was exactly what Dr. Curtis had told Provident to expect.

Initial Administrative Appeal Review Suggests that the Basis for Denial Is Weak

Provident employee Darragh Ferranti received Perryman’s file for review. In December 1999, Ferranti submitted an Appeal Recommendation to other Provident personnel, recommending that Perryman’s benefits be reinstated. In the document, which the Courts would later order be produced and attached to the Administrative Record, Ferranti pointed to the fact that Provident had paid the claim from 1997 without contesting Perryman’s diagnosis and pointed to the fact that their own independent medical evaluation in 1997 had supported the diagnosis.

Ferranti agreed that Perryman could likely return to some form employment where the work was sedentary, but seriously questioned Perryman’s ability to earn $160,000 a year, 80% of her indexed earnings in her prior occupation. Ferranti noted that the highest paid position listed on Purdue’s first TSA was only $32,000 a year. Ferranti also recognized that while many of the positions allowed for commission based income, this would require motivation and energy, something that Perryman seemed to lack.

Disability Attorney Receives Notice of Appeal Denial

After Ferranti spoke with Healthsouth about the FCE results and received Purdue’s second TSA, she changed her mind. She informed Perryman’s disability attorney in writing of Provident’s decision on December 29, 1999. Ferranti made it clear that the diagnosis of CFS was in question. Because Perryman had seen some improvement in her condition in response to anti-depression medications, it was also possible that she suffered from a sleep disorder that had not been diagnosed or treated. If a sleep clinic had indeed told Perryman that they could not help her, she had not provided records to prove this.

She also referred to office notes that went back to 1994 which applied the same symptoms – memory loss, loss of concentration, dizziness, blackouts, etc. while she was experiencing the severe stress of the dissolution of her marriage. Because the divorce was still ongoing in 1998, it was highly probable that her condition was stress related and not CFS at all.

She also referred to discrepancies in the medical records regarding her treatment. She pointed to the fact that the medical record was silent between January 1997 and April 1997, even though her last day of work was February 28, 1997. Perryman’s claim that she was completely bedridden for the 110 days after she was first affected by CFS could not be confirmed independently.

Then she gave the reasons Provident was upholding its decision:

  1. The FCE suggested that if Perryman had worked her way into it, she would have been able to resume work in June, 1999.
  2. There were positions in which Perryman could earn $160,000 a year that used her education, training and experience.
  3. If her concentrations and memory problems were so severe, then she had placed her 95 year old mother’s life at risk, as well as others on the road, by driving her car. She also seemed to be able to care for her essentially blind mother. The insurance company had also observed that she was able to travel and visit friends and family out of state.

Based on these facts, Provident determined that Perryman’s only reason for not returning to work was the lack of financial incentive. She had been receiving about $5000 a month. Provident claimed that she had at least sedentary work capacity that enabled her to work an 8-hour day and there were positions for which she was well qualified that would allow her to earn 80% indexed income as stipulated by the long-term disability plan.

Only Option Left is for Disability Attorney to Represent Disability Claimant in Court

Perryman had exhausted her administrative appeals. The only remaining option was to file a lawsuit in District Court. We will discuss the Court’s decision in our next article, Arizona Court rules Provident wrongfully terminated disability benefits to insurance manager with CFS (Part II).

Did you find this helpful?
Unhelpful (0)

Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits

Disability Benefit Denial Options
Unum Disability Denial

Let’s discuss your case your Unum disability denial.

Unum Disability Denial

Submit a Strong Unum Appeal Package

We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Unum appeal.

Unum Disability Appeal

Sue Unum

We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Unum.

Unum Disability Lawsuit

Protect Your Benefits
Get Your Unum Disability Application Approved
We help claimants throughout the entire application process.

Learn more

Prevent a Unum Disability Benefit Denial
We manage every aspect of your disability claim following claim approval.

Learn more

Negotiate a Unum Lump-Sum Settlement

Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.

Learn more

Unum Reviews

Policy Holder Rating

1.6 out of 5
Read 60 reviews
0%would recommend
Timely Payments
1.8out of 5
Handling Claim
2.1out of 5
Customer Service
2.1out of 5
2.1out of 5
1.9out of 5
Showing 8 of 642 Reviews

Low payments

Reviewed by Dorothy on November 30th 2023   Verified Policyholder | November 2023 date of disability
I was injured at work. I did house keeping in a hospital. I tore just about everything imaginable in my knee. I was let go from my job, because I was no longer able to do ... read more >

They closed my claim and I have been without income since they closed it

Reviewed by Mary C. on November 8th 2023   Verified Policyholder
Went off work on 9/26/22 due to back issues. Applied for Short Term Disability. On Jan 2023 switched over to Long Term Disability and Unum had me to apply for Social Secur... read more >

I feel like Unum is giving me the runaround!

Reviewed by Rachelle H. on May 11th 2022   Verified Policyholder
I have contacted UNUM multiple times since I’ve needed them. I feel like they are giving me the runaround! Please help!
Sent on May 11th 2022 by Attorney Stephen Jessup

Rachelle, the law provides certain timelines and deadlines with which to provide information or decisions. Please feel free to contact our office to discuss your situat... read more >


Unum terminated my benefits with no warning

Reviewed by K. Potter on September 9th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I was told I was covered with Unum through my employer (continuum). I got an email today for my termination, no prior talks of infractions with attendance, no warnings, no... read more >
Sent on September 9th 2020 by Attorney Stephen Jessup

K. Potter, termination as in your employment was terminated or a disability claim was terminated? If your employment was terminated and you had not filed a claim for di... read more >


I've been trying to care care of my Unum benefits for over a year. They’ve been so rude

Reviewed by Tracey W. on August 30th 2020   Verified Policyholder
I have been trying to take care of my Unum benefits for over a year. I’ve called and back in November I did appeal letter, they say they never received. I did everything... read more >
Sent on August 30th 2020 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Tracey, I am sorry to hear of your issues with Unum. We would love to learn more about your claim to see if we can get Unum to pay or if we can sue them with you. Pleas... read more >


I've paid for STD for 20+ years. Now, I'm actually sick and can't get paid

Reviewed by Natalie on June 29th 2020   Verified Policyholder
My employer uses unum for short-term disability. I was hospitalized back on june 13 and discharged on june 25. I was admitted for double pneumonia and hypoxia, which I end... read more >
Sent on June 29th 2020 by Attorney Rachel Alters

Natalie, hopefully your claim will be approved. If they deny the STD claim then you will need to appeal the determination.


Unum thought I was fine to work. I wasn't

Reviewed by Elizabeth L. on May 21st 2020   Verified Policyholder
48 yoa dentist POTs Dx aug 22. Attempted to return to work initially but got sick. Was going to go back 2 days/wk in September but could not. Then did go back part time as... read more >
Sent on May 21st 2020 by Attorney Stephen Jessup

Elizabeth, please contact our office to discuss the denial of your claim and your rights to pursue legal action against Unum.


Unum has made me feel like a criminal

Reviewed by Kevin on February 6th 2020   Verified Policyholder
Hi, I am currently receiving LTD from UNUM. I used to work as a Radiologist Tech at Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville, TN. for about 10 years. Than I started having g... read more >
Sent on February 6th 2020 by Attorney Gregory Dell

Kevin, I am sorry to hear all that you are going through and the stress this is causing you. The policy governing your claim likely does allow Unum to conduct an in-per... read more >

Answered Questions by Our Lawyers
Showing 8 of 97 Answered Questions

Q: Can receiving a Unum group LTD benefit settlement lower my SSDI benefit?

Answered on March 29th 2024 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Jeff,The acceptance of a Unum Lump Sum Buyout offer should not reduce your ssdi benefit. You should contact ... Read More >

Q: Do we have any legal action against Unum?

Answered on January 15th 2024 by Attorney Alex Palamara
A: I am sorry to hear of Unum’s actions here and how they have treated your claim, especially in their long del... Read More >

Q: Is it normal for “UNUM” to ask for a police report?

Answered on January 15th 2024 by Attorney Alex Palamara
A: Derrick, a simple answer to your question is Yes, if there was some sort of MVA accident which caused or contr... Read More >

Q: Unum stopped my COLA benefits at age 65

Answered on December 19th 2023 by Attorney Rachel Alters
A: Unum policies usually only pay COLA increases until you turn 65 even if the policy pays longer. Read More >

Q: Survivor's benefits

Answered on December 15th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Cindy: A few things come to mind. Your disability policy will have a section called deductible sources of inco... Read More >

Q: FMLA and my LTD claim

Answered on December 6th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Unum doesn’t consider FMLA as they only care if you meet the terms of your disability policy with Unum. Read More >

Q: Is the recipient responsible for overpayment when they had nothing to do with the reporting?

Answered on November 30th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Jeanne:The beneficiary, which would be you, is responsible for a legitimate overpayment regardless of who ... Read More >

Q: Does UNUM periodically review Group Long Term Disability Insurance claims/payments? For example, do they verify medical eligibility every five or ten years?

Answered on October 24th 2023 by Attorney Gregory Dell
A: Great question. The answer varies on the type of claim you have. On average Unum reviews medical eligibility e... Read More >
Helpful Videos
Showing 12 of 889 Videos
Disability Benefit Tips
Showing 8 of 331 Benefit Tips

Is UNUM a Good Insurance Company?

One common question the attorneys here at Dell Disability Lawyers receive comes from policyho... Read More >

How Long Does UNUM Long Term Disability Last?

When it comes to long term disability (LTD) insurance, every UNUM disability insurance policy... Read More >

Can You Sue UNUM?

If UNUM denies your long term disability insurance claim, can you sue? Generally, t... Read More >

How Does UNUM Define Disability?

UNUM Group - the Tennessee-based Fortune 500 insurance company that includes UNUM US, UN... Read More >

Beware of Traveling While on Disability with Unum

In the past several months our office has been hired by two separate clients who had individual disability policies purchased privately throug... Read More >

If I Sue Unum for a Disability Insurance Denial, What Should I Anticipate?

Disability insurance Attorneys Gregory Dell and Stephen Jessup discuss the numerous issues th... Read More >

Unum Disability Benefit Denial Trends, A Legal Perspective

In this video we discuss the recent trends they have observed with regard to Unum Insurance C... Read More >

A New Bait and Switch Tactic by Unum Disability Insurance Company

Unum reached a new low today which displays absolute disregard for the rights of a UNUM insured. Our law firm advised Unum in a January 16, 20... Read More >
Dell Disability Cases
Showing 8 of 375 Dell Disability Cases

Transportation Manager with Brain Injury Wins Unum Disability Benefit Appeal

Unum unjustly terminated our client’s long term disability claim after it had approved and... Read More >

Louisiana State College Director Wins Unum LTD Appeal But Then Denied Again

Client was Regional Director for the State of Louisiana. She was diagnosed with cervical rad... Read More >

Unum Approves LTD Benefits for Pharmacist with Eye Disorder

Rachel Alters of Dell Disability Attorney’s currently represents an Ambulatory Operations P... Read More >

Billing Manager With Back Disorder Wins Unum Long Term Disability Denial Appeal

Despite suffering with chronic knee and back pain for 7 Years, Unum still needed to be convi... Read More >

Unum Lifts Mental Health Limitation on Disability Claim

When our client first contacted our office and spoke with Attorney Stephen Jessup her claim for long term disability benefits had been approve... Read More >

Unum Approves Long Term Disability Application to a Program Manager

Our client, a high level Program Manager for a large international aeronautics company, was involved in an automobile accident that resulted i... Read More >

After appeal filed by Attorney Jay Symonds, UNUM overturned previous denial of long term disability benefits for South Carolina Nurse

Our client, Ms. L, formerly worked as a Registered Nurse for a nursing home. In November 2014 a number of chronic physical conditions and pain... Read More >

Unum Overturns Original Decision to Deny Benefits to Disabled Account Manager Following Appeal Submitted by Dell Disability Lawyers Appeals Team

In 2016, Sarah, an Account Manager, began suffering severe abdominal pain accompanied by bloody diarrhea. The frequency and condition was so s... Read More >
Disability Lawsuit Stories
Showing 8 of 765 Lawsuit Stories

Unum Wrongfully Terminated Disabled Lawyer’s Disability Claim of Depression and Anxiety Despite Improvement in His Condition

This Unum lawsuit and appeal in federal court is a great victory for all Unum disability claimants. This ca... Read More >

Court Rules Plaintiff's Medical Records Was Replete With Evidence Supporting Claim of MS & Was Not A Pre-Existing Condition

BackgroundIn Bayer v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, C.A. No. 18-9702 (E.D. LA 2020), Plaintiff began working as a seni... Read More >

After paying for 13 years Unum Denies Disability Benefits to Woman with Lyme Disease and Endometriosis

In Stephanie Dorris v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum), Plaintiff was President of Beans Plus, Inc... Read More >

Inexperienced Lawyer Handles Unum Disability Lawsuit and Fails to Provide Evidence to Support Occupational Argument

The case of Stephanie Dorris v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum) is an example of how an inexperien... Read More >

Can UNUM Deny LTD Benefits When Plaintiff Proves Eligibility by a Preponderance of the Evidence?

In the case of Paul Luu v. First Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum), Plaintiff had been employed by MUFG Union Bank ... Read More >

Is Remand Required If Plaintiff Proves Disability by a Preponderance of the Evidence?

In Ralph Dewsnup v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum), Plaintiff was a trial attorney with the law firm of&nbs... Read More >

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 ... Read More >

Court Rules Proper Standard of Review is Abuse of Discretion

In Christoff v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Plaintiff Christoff suffered from severe fibromyalgia. He was insured under a group em... Read More >

Reviews from Our Clients

Request a Free Consultation

Our Lawyers Respond Same Day

5 Ways We Help Get Your Benefits Paid

Get Your Disability Application Approved

Our goal is to get your application for disability income benefits approved. Applying for disability benefits can be a difficult process and the information you provide is critical. Most disability insurance companies look at your application in hopes of finding a reason to deny your claim. Your disability company will ask you to complete numerous forms, interview you, request lots of information, speak with your doctors and possibly request to have you examined by their "hired gun" doctor.

Through our experience of having helped thousands of disability insurance claimants, our lawyers will guide you through the entire application process and give you the best chance to get your disability claim approved the first time.

Submit A Strong Appeal Package

If your disability insurance benefits have been wrongfully denied, then our lawyers know exactly what it takes to get your disability claim approved. You only get once chance to submit an Appeal, therefore every piece of evidence that will support your disability claim must be included. The goal is to win your disability benefits at the Appeal level, but while preparing your Appeal you must consider how a federal judge will review your disability claim if your benefit denial is upheld.

Preparing a strong disability appeal package is an art that requires you to understand how the courts interpret your disability policy language, ERISA regulations / laws, and how to strategically present evidence in support of your definition of "disability". We encourage you to contact any of our lawyers for a free immediate review of your disability denial.

Sue Your Disability Company

98% of the disability insurance lawsuits filed by our law firm have resulted in either the payment of benefits or a lump-sum settlement agreement. Our disability lawyers have filed ERISA governed and private policy long term disability insurance lawsuits against every major disability insurance company in state and federal courts nationwide and we love fighting for the "little guy" against the multi-billion dollar insurance company giants.

We have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for our clients and we would like the opportunity to provide you with a free review of your disability benefit denial. There are many complex factors in a disability benefit lawsuit and the legal battle to win long term disability benefits can be fierce.

Prevent A Disability Benefit Denial

Approval of long-term disability is a continuous process as every disability insurance company will evaluate your eligibility for benefits on a monthly basis. You can never let your guard down and assume that your disability company will continue to pay your benefits for as long as you think you need them.

Our law firm offers a reasonable flat fee monthly claim handling service in which we handle every aspect of your long-term disability claim and do whatever it takes to make sure you are paid every month.

Negotiate a Lump-Sum Settlement

Let's discuss if a lump-sum settlement or buyout of your disability insurance claim is both available and makes financial sense for you. Our lawyers have negotiated more than five-hundred million dollars in disability insurance buyouts and we know how to get you a maximum settlement. A disability insurance company is not required to offer a buyout and not every disability company offers them.

Questions About Hiring Us

Who are Dell Disability Lawyers?

We are disability insurance lawyers that know how to get your short or long term disability benefits paid. As a nationwide law firm we have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants throughout the United States to collect hundreds of millions of dollars of disability insurance benefits from every major disability insurance company.

In more than 98% of our cases, our lawyers have been able to either get our clients paid monthly disability benefits or obtain a one-time lump-sum settlement. Our lawyers have seen it all when it comes to disability insurance claims and we know exactly what it takes for your disability claim to be approved.

We welcome you to contact any of our attorneys for a free immediate review of your disability claim. We also invite you to visit and subscribe to our YouTube channel where we have more than 700 videos and regularly provide tips to help protect your disability benefits.

Who do you help?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer. We have helped individuals in almost every type of occupation with monthly disability benefit payments ranging from $1,500 to $50,000.

Our clients include all types of employees ranging from retail associates, sales representatives, government employees, police officers, teachers, janitors, nurses, pilots, truck drivers, financial advisors, doctors, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, consultants, IT professionals, engineers, professional athletes, business owners, and high level executives.

A strong understanding and presentation of the duties of your occupation is essential for securing disability insurance benefits.

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 phone, email, fax, GoToMeeting 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 800-698-9159 or by email. Lawyers 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.