Unum Provident denies short-term disability claim to woman with chronic fatigue syndrome (Part I)

Disability attorney concludes the medical evidence proves wrongful denial of disability benefits.

When Jean Strope’s disability attorney filed suit on her behalf in the Western District of New York September 15, 2006, he believed his client had a strong case for wrongful denial of short-term disability benefits. U.S. District Courts are holding disability insurance plans, such as the one issued to HSBC Bank USA (HSBC) by First Unum Life Insurance Company (Unum) accountable for denying benefits to claimants with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome when the claimants are unable to provide objective evidence of their symptoms. By looking at the medical history behind Strope’s short-term disability claim, we will understand the foundation for why Strope had to take her claim to court.

Strope was one of HSBC Bank’s Senior Vice-presidents when she first began to experience extreme fatigue. She went to see Dr. Danuta Derkatz on April 1, 2005. She advised that Strope stay home from work until her next appointment in May. Based on her doctor’s orders, Strope applied for short-term disability benefits from Unum under the short-term disability plan she participated in as an HSBC Bank employee.

The short-term disability plan included an elimination period. If Strope was continuously disabled during this time, she would be eligible for the 26 weeks of short-term disability the plan provided for. The plan defined “disabled” as “limited from performing the material and substantial duties of your regular occupation” due to sickness or injury combined with “a 20% or more loss in weekly earnings” due to the same sickness or injury.

On the same day that Strope made her application, Unum mailed a letter to Dr. Derkatz asking the doctor to complete an Attending Physician’s Statement enclosed with the letter. This letter was followed 10 days later with a request for all of Strope’s medical records from April 1, 2005 to the present. Dr. Derkatz responded by sending a copy of her office notes from April 1, 2005. It noted that this visit was a follow-up for Epstein-Barr Virus and indicated that Strope felt “terrible; very, very tired.” The doctor also noted a need to follow up on a potential sleep apnea diagnosis. The physician ordered Strope to not return to work until May 6, 2005.

Unum finds evidence supporting disability inadequate.

On April 22, Unum notified Strope that her doctor had not provided sufficient information. Because Dr. Derkatz had failed to send back a report that listed the activities she could not do, along with medical explanations of why her symptoms prevented her from these activities. At the same time, Unum also asked Dr. Derkatz to send Strope’s medical records going back to January 1, 2005.

Dr. Derkatz sent the additional medical records and the Attending Physician’s Statement to Unum on April 28. The statement told Unum that Strope tested positive for Epstein-Barr Virus, a common cause of extreme fatigue. The physician noted that Strope’s symptoms included severe fatigue and the ability to only perform simple tasks. The doctor stated that Strope would probably be able to return to work on May 6, 2005.

Two nurse-consultants reviewed Strope’s file on May 5, 2005. They concluded that the medical records did not support the restrictions and limitations recommended by Dr. Derkatz. Unum notified Strope that the medical information was insufficient to verify her qualification for benefits. She was asked once again to provide a list of “activities you cannot and should not do along with an explanation of the medical reasoning supporting these restrictions and limitations.” Unum sent Dr. Derkatz an Estimated Functional Abilities form, asking her to complete it and submit any additional medical records from April 2 until May 13, 2005 that were available.

Application for short-term disability is denied for lack of “medical documentation.”

On June 1, 2005, Unum notified Strope that the short-term disability claim had been denied because her disability had not been supported by medical documentation. Unum said it was unclear why she was unable to work after April 1, 2005. Unum advised Strope to provide additional medical documentation, including sleep apnea records. She was given 180 days to do so.

Dr. Derkatz sent Unum a letter on June 6, 2005 stating that Strope was under her care for Epstein Barr virus which exhibited the typical symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). She was also treating Strope for depression, hypothyroid, borderline sleep apnea and possible Lupus Erythematosis.” She noted that Strope’s symptoms included “profound fatigue, joint pain of her knees, hips, feet, hands and upper back with tenderness to palpation.” These symptoms according to the doctor were “currently debilitating and preclude[d] her from any type of work.” Dr. Derkatz noted that Strope had difficulty concentrating and moving around and had to rest frequently throughout the day.

This additional information proved ineffective at changing Unum’s denial decision. When a nurse-consultant reviewed it on June 13, 2005, the consultant found that Dr. Derkatz’s restrictions seemed overly restrictive because Strope had multiple diagnoses with multiple complaints. She also found “no apparent documentation in the medical records which would appear to reflect an impairment in physical or cognitive functioning capabilities.”

Based on this information, Unum notified Strope on June 20, 2005 that the disability insurance company was upholding its denial of her claim. The letter noted her symptoms, but pointed to a lack of “clinically supported restrictions and limitations” that would prevent her from performing the “material and substantial duties” of her position at HSBC.

Appeal of short-term disability benefits denial includes “medical evidence.”

Strope submitted an administrative ERISA appeal of the denial decision. In an effort to provide the necessary “medical evidence”, Dr. Derkatz sent Unum the following reports:

Unum finds medical evidence insufficient to reverse denial of short-term disability benefits.

This information was reviewed by a nurse-consultant on August 5, 2005. The consultant found that Dr. Derkatz findings that Strope could not concentrate were not supported by any test that evaluated Strope’s cognitive difficulties. Likewise no tests or office notes substantiated the difficulties with ambulation. The medical records indicated a previous Epstein-Barr infection, not a current active infection. The records showed no evidence of Lupus, normal thyroid function and only mild sleep apnea. The consultant also determined that Strope’s symptoms failed to meet the criteria established by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).

Unum denies short-term disability benefits but approves long-term disability benefits under a separate policy.

Based on this information Unum, upheld its decision to deny Strope’s claim for short-term disability benefits. Meanwhile, Strope had applied for long-term disability benefits from a separate policy carried by HSBC for its employees under the New York Disability Benefits Law. This policy was also managed by Unum. Even though, Unum initially denied this claim as well, after a Worker’s Compensation Board hearing in which Strope was determined eligible, Unum agreed to pay long-term disability benefits.

Disability attorney files suit against Unum for improperly denying short trerm disability claim for “subjective” illness – Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Seeking to recover the short-term disability benefits due her, Strope filed suit on September 15, 2006. Her disability attorney’s case would stand or fall based upon his ability to show that the medical records demonstrated that his client did indeed have a subjective illness that cannot be substantiated by objective medical tests. Would he be successful? Read more about the results of this case in Part II: Disability attorney wins claim for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) client against Unum Provident.

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 help Unum claimants nationwide?

We represent Unum clients nationwide and we encourage you to contact us for a FREE immediate phone consultation with one of our experienced disability insurance attorneys.

Can you help with a Unum disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from Unum. We have helped thousands of disability insurance claimants nationwide with monthly disability benefits. With more than 40 years of disability insurance experience we have helped individuals in almost every occupation and we are familiar with the disability income policies offered by Unum.

How do you help Unum claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a Unum long term disability insurance policy from an insurance company or obtained short or long term disability insurance coverage as a benefit from their employer.

Our experienced lawyers can assist with Unum:

  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Appeals of Disability Benefit Denials
  • ERISA and Non-ERISA Disability Benefit Lawsuits
  • Applying For Short or Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Daily Handling & Management of Your Disability Claim
  • Disability Insurance Lump-Sum Buyout or Settlement Negotiations

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   *****

Gail T.

I contacted Dell & Schaefer after my insurance provider stated that they were coming to visit me at my home to see how I was doing. I was so worried about what this meant after being on claim with them for three years. I always felt like I was always waiting for the other shoe to drop with them after going through a very stressful claim application process. Gregory Dell promptly jumped in and got to work at creating a solution to streamline and ensure my claim was not in jeopardy.

The staff has worked with me every step of the way to make sure that the process of receiving my benefits is a positive one for me. I no longer dread dealing with my insurance claim representative as they handle everything for me. They clarified that I could also apply for SSDI and with their help I started receiving SSDI benefits within months. This firm has been a great advocate for me and I highly recommend them.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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