Utah Judge Reverses MetLife’s Denial of Mental Disability Long Term Benefits

Factual Overview

Michelle Duncan worked for 22 years for Verizon. She started with the company upon her graduation from high school back when Verizon was known as U.S. West Paging. She worked her way up the ladder to the position of Global Enterprise Manager. It was a high-pressured job requiring travel and dealing with hundreds of email communications every day.

In 2010, she began having auditory hallucinations. She suffered from feelings of paranoia. On one out-of-town meeting, she became disoriented, not knowing where she was or why she was there. She exhibited other symptoms of a mental disorder and visual hallucinations developed along with the auditory ones.

Duncan was covered under an ERISA disability policy through Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). The Plan provided:
1. Short term disability up to 26 weeks.
2. Long-term disability (LTD) benefits for up to 26 months if the disability remained.
3. LTD Benefits continuing to age 65 only if the mental disability is “attributable to schizophrenia, dementia, or organic brain disease.” If benefits are granted under this provision and the participant regains the ability to work in a gainful occupation for which she or he is qualified, the benefits may be terminated.

In December 2011, Mrs. Duncan was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and her request for short term disability benefits was granted. Her request for LTD benefits under provision three was denied. MetLife asserted that “schizoaffective disorder [is]a separate diagnosis from schizophrenia with its own diagnostic criteria.” It denied her claim for LTD benefits and she appealed. After exhausting her administrative remedies, she filed this ERISA lawsuit.

The Court disagreed with MetLife, finding that “MetLife’s literal reading is the type of overly restrictive interpretation that results in arbitrary claim denials and undermines public policy.” The Court attributed a number of errors to MetLife in its administration of the plan and its ultimate denial of benefits. The Court remanded to MetLife to reconsider the denial based on the recommendations by the court.

Met-Life Demonstrated at Least a Partial Conflict of Interest

The Department of Labor requires a claim denial to include the specific “reasons for the adverse determination.” On this record, MetLife provided Duncan a brief explanation of its denial “mere paragraphs before informing [her] that her remedies were exhausted.” This did not give her an adequate explanation of the reasons for the denial, and did not allow her to supplement the record. This left the Court with an administrative record that was not helpful. This indicated that MetLife had a conflict of interest and made its denial decision “in part to avoid a substantial payment of benefits.”

MetLife Made a Number of Errors in Its Decision that Duncan’s Diagnosis was not Schizophrenia

The Utah Federal District Court found MetLife made a number of errors in its determination that the schizoaffective disorder did not fit into the definition of schizophrenia.

· The schizophrenia exclusion is ambiguous.

· MetLife’s interpretation is unreasonable.

· Its interpretation is inconsistent with the DSM.

· Its interpretation is inconsistent with other Plan exclusions.

· Analogous case law does not support MetLife’s interpretation.

· Its interpretation undermines public policy.

With so many errors, it seems the court would award the plaintiff benefits. Instead, it remanded since MetLife had not made adequate factual findings. The court gave MetLife the opportunity “to do the factual investigation necessary to discover whether Mrs. Duncan’s specific condition could fall within the schizophrenia exclusion.”

This case was not handled by our office, but it may provide claimants guidance in their pursuit of compensation under a mental health definition of their disability policy. If you need assistance with a similar matter, please contact any of our lawyers for a free consultation.

Read more about Metlife disability claims.

Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

View videos, articles, resolved cases and claimant reviews about your specific disability insurance company.

Leave a comment or ask us a question


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.


Bruce R. (Arizona)

Steve Dell has done an exceptional job with my disability application process. The firm is extremely well managed. They have acquired an incredible amount of experience over many years. I recommend them for disability insurance claims without reservation. 

Don (Florida)

I called this firm a few months ago completely disparaged due to a company cutting off disability benefits at a time that nearly caused me to lose everything.

Attorney Alex Palmera and Danielle worked hard to reach an amicable settlement and my case was settled a few months later. This is a good firm and the specific expertise in disability claims saved me countless hours of hassle at a time when an already fragile state existed.

Thank you Mr. Palamara and Danielle.

Sandra B. (Arkansas)

I have nothing but good things to say about how my buyout was handled with my disability claim. The level of professionalism was amazing. All of my questions and concerns were answered either by Danielle L. or Alex P. in such a timely manner and with such care I would recommend them in a heartbeat to anyone needing to approach their provider with buyout options.

They did a fantastic job communicating between the provider and me, always keeping my best interest at heart and always answering my many many questions. They really did take most of the stress out of this whole situation. I would give them a 10 out of 10 for every step of this crazy journey. Thank you so much for helping me through this.

Brenda R. (New York)

I needed assistance with an appeal for a LTD claim that was initially denied. Stephen understood what needed to happen to win the appeal and he did win the appeal for me.

Michael C. (Virginia)

Greg Dell and his assistant Anneli have been extremely responsive and helpful, not only our initial consultations, but in follow-ups 1 and 2 years later with the insurance company to ensure that they comply with their agreements (which they did), as well as a separate and only slightly-related inquiry about our health insurance. I always hear back from them very quickly, which is rare and greatly appreciated.

Jeff P. (Oklahoma)

After a very long and frustrating ordeal to keep my LTD payments coming I decided to seek assistance from and attorney. After much research and asking those in the legal profession Dell & Schaefer seemed to be the top choice. I reached out and Alex Palamara was the attorney assigned to my case. All I can say is the experience was outstanding. Both Alex and his Paralegal, Danielle Lauria were excellent to work with. They were very kind, concerned, understanding of my frustrations and treated me with the utmost respect. Communication was excellent with regular updates and telling me what I could expect in each stage of the process.

Alex was also very straight forward with what to expect and no pie in the sky promises or expectations were made. In the end we won our case and I believe it was solely due to their experience and knowledge of not only the laws but the insurance companies as a whole. I would highly recommend them and am very grateful for the help they afforded to me.

Speak With An Attorney Now

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