US supreme court attempts to clarify the standard of review in denial of long term disability benefits

On June 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States finally issued their opinion in the case of Wanda Glen v. Met Life. In a 6 to 3 decision announced Thursday, the US Supreme Court ruled that benefit denials by such companies must be examined with caution when circumstances suggest a high likelihood that financial considerations affected a benefits decision. While Ms. Glenn won her case and Met Life was ordered to pay long-term disability benefits, the Supreme Court did not make any significant findings that will change the way that Federal courts must interpret disability benefit denials. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to modify the standard of review to “de novo” (complete review) in all conflict of interest disability claim denials, however they did nothing to give employees a better chance of securing disability benefits that have been denied.

Judges must approach medical disability and health insurance disputes with a skeptical eye when they involve insurance companies that both evaluate and pay employee claims.

The court added that an apparent conflict of interest is only one of many factors that a reviewing judge must consider.

The ruling is important because it offers guidance to federal judges presiding over lawsuits challenging medical disability and health insurance determinations in group policies.

“When judges review the lawfulness of benefit denials, they will often take account of several different considerations of which a conflict of interest is one,” writes Justice Stephen Breyer in the majority opinion.

The decision, in Metlife v. Glenn, comes in the case of an Ohio woman diagnosed with a severe heart condition, who had her disability benefits withdrawn by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

A federal judge upheld the denial of benefits, but the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that finding, ruling that the judge had not fully considered the impact of MetLife’s potential conflict of interest in both administering the plan and deciding which claims to pay and which to deny.

Justice Breyer said the appeals court followed the correct “combination-of-factors method of review.” He said judges should examine the record for potentially inconsistent positions taken by a company, and whether the company gave due weight to the entire record or favored certain reports while downplaying others.

Three justices dissented. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court was giving too much weight to an appearance of conflict. He said that under the law of trusts “[A] fiduciary with a conflict does not abuse its discretion unless the conflict actually and improperly motivates the decision.” He adds, “There is no evidence of that here.”

Dissents were also filed by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

In passing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), Congress authorized insurance companies to both evaluate and pay claims. ERISA also authorizes employees to file a lawsuit in federal court challenging an unfair denial of benefits.

But ERISA doesn’t set a clear standard for judges who are called upon to decide disputes over benefits.

In 1989, the Supreme Court ruled that judges hearing such lawsuits must apply a more rigorous standard of review in cases in which the plan administrator served as both the evaluator and payer of claims.

But the court did not explain what constitutes a conflict of interest or how federal judges should weigh such a conflict while considering a particular case.

Thursday’s decision stems from the case of Wanda Glenn, a sales manager at a Sears store from 1986 to 2000. In 2000, her physician diagnosed a severe heart condition. He advised that she no longer work. She applied for disability benefits under Sears’ plan, administered by MetLife.

On the basis of the diagnosis and the physician’s recommendation, MetLife found that Ms. Glenn was totally disabled and began paying benefits. With the help of MetLife, she also applied for and obtained disability payments from the Social Security Administration.

After two years, the MetLife policy required a new assessment of whether Glenn could perform any job or was still totally disabled. Her physician had repeatedly verified the severity of her condition, but at one point he checked a box on an evaluation form indicating that Glenn was able to work in a “sedentary physical exertion level occupation.”

Three months later, contrary to the checked box, Glenn’s physician again stated that he did not believe she could handle any kind of stress at work.

In evaluating Glenn’s disability claim, MetLife focused on the checked box and decided to stop making disability payments to her.

Glenn challenged the decision and eventually took MetLife to court.

In siding with Glenn, the Sixth Circuit said MetLife cherry-picked certain aspects of Glenn’s medical records, while ignoring others. This selective review, combined with MetLife’s conflict of interest in both evaluating and paying claims, rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious, the appeals court found.

In affirming the Sixth Circuit, Justice Breyer said: “All of these serious concerns, taken together with some degree of conflicting interests on MetLife’s part, led the court to set aside MetLife’s discretionary decision. We can find nothing improper in the way in which the court conducted its review.”

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 MetLife claimants nationwide?

We represent MetLife 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 MetLife disability insurance policy?

Our disability insurance lawyers help policy holders seeking short or long term disability insurance benefits from MetLife. 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 MetLife.

How do you help MetLife claimants?

Our lawyers help individuals that have either purchased a MetLife 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 MetLife:

  • 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