Court Finds Video Surveillance Renders Claimant’s Self-Reporting Unreliable and Upholds Hartford’s Termination of LTD Benefits

In Cummings v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. (Hartford), Plaintiff was employed by the Free-Port McMoran Corporation (Plan) when he became disabled due to diagnoses of degenerative disc disease which caused him chronic debilitating pain and myofascial pain syndrome.

Plaintiff was covered under his employer’s Group Long Term Disability Plan through Hartford and received long-term disability (LTD) benefits from May 3, 2010, to January 19, 2018, when Hartford terminated his benefits.

The termination came after a year-long investigation of Plaintiff’s entitlement to benefits. Hartford based its denial on:

Plaintiff’s Administrative Appeal

On administrative appeal, Plaintiff submitted more documents including a Functional Capacity Evaluation report (FCE) conducted by a physical therapist and an IME report by Dr. Timothy Hall. Both concluded that Plaintiff was “incapable of full-time work.” Plaintiff also submitted medical articles related to chronic pain.

Hartford reviewed the submission documents, including the IME and FCE and concluded that both “identified some function consistent with sedentary to light work which is supported by the surveillance video and the Independent Medical Review [IME] by Joseph Rea.” Hartford then referred the entire administrative file to another independent, third-party vendor who assigned the review to Dr. Michael Jacobs.”

Dr. Jacobs, board-certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Pain Medicine, and Occupational Medicine, reviewed all the information provided including three MRI reports and all office notes of all treating healthcare practitioners. He agreed with the two diagnoses but disagreed with opinions saying Plaintiff could not work at all. He opined that Plaintiff could work full-time with some accommodations.

Hartford conducted another EAR which identified several occupations that fit Plaintiff’s abilities. Based on all this information, Hartford denied Plaintiff’s appeal.

Plaintiff then filed this ERISA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The Court determined that the proper standard of review was arbitrary and capricious standard meaning that “the decision will be upheld so long as it is ‘grounded on any reasonable basis.’” The Court then upheld Hartford’s termination of Plaintiff’s LTD benefits finding it was not an arbitrary and capricious decision.

The District Court Analysis

In the District Court, the Plaintiff raised several issues. The Court dealt with each one, applying the facts of Plaintiff’s case to Tenth Circuit precedent.

Hartford’s conflict of interest. Plaintiff alleged Hartford had a conflict of interest since it was “both the administrator and insurer of the [plan].” The Court did not give much weight to this argument since Hartford took steps to “reduce potential bias” by hiring two independent, board-certified physicians to conduct a peer review.

Plaintiff’s self-reporting was not credible. The Court gave Plaintiff little credibility when, for just one example, Plaintiff was seen on the video surveillance standing on a chair leaning over the engine of his care with a socket wrench in his hand working on the engine of his car. In a face-to-face interview with Hartford, Plaintiff “denied being able to do any maintenance or repairs on a vehicle.”

Medical opinions based on Plaintiff’s self-reporting were given little weight. The peer review reports generally agreed with the treating physicians’ diagnoses, but disagreed with the characterizations of Plaintiff’s functionality, which “heavily relied on his self-reporting.” The Court determined that Hartford, considering the video surveillance, reasonably placed greater value on the opinions of the reviewing physicians than the treating physicians.

Lack of an IME. Plaintiff, who had refused to schedule a physical exam, argued to the Court that Hartford should have conducted an IME. The Court noted that an IME is not required “to uphold the denial of ERISA benefits” particularly in this case where Hartford made a good faith effort to schedule such an exam.

Hartford reasonably relied on reports of insurance peer reviews by physicians Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Rea. Plaintiff argued that it was arbitrary and capricious for Hartford to rely on the reports of the peer review doctors instead of his treating physicians. The Court noted that “plan administrators are not obliged to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians.” The Court also noted that the reports reflected thorough review processes and that “Hartford’s reliance upon the peer review reports of Drs. Rea and Jacobs was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”

Prior approval of benefits. Plaintiff argued that evidence of Hartford’s prior payment of benefits should weigh in his favor. The Court held that prior paying of benefits does not prevent an administrator from denying benefits when the administrator receives new information.

Here, Hartford received new information with the surveillance footage, the face-to-face interview with Plaintiff, and the peer review reports. These all weighed in Hartford’s favor.

Plaintiff also argued Hartford erred by not reviewing the supplemental medical materials he provided and by not listing the occupations it believed met the Plan’s financial requirements. The Court determined that neither issue made the termination of benefits arbitrary or capricious.

Ultimately, the Court held in favor of Hartford on each issue and ruled its termination of benefits was reasonable and based on substantial evidence.

This case was not handled by our office, but we believe it can be instructive to those who have had their LTD benefits terminated after receiving them for many years. If you have questions about this case, or any question about your claim for short-term disability benefits or LTD, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.

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.


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, 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.

Chad B. (Illinois)

I originally spoke with 3 other long term disability lawyers about my case before contacting Dell and Schaefer. None of those law firms would take it. They said the chances of me winning was not good. After finding Dell and Schaefer online I spoke with one of the attorneys that has since left. He did take my case but later it was picked up by Rachel Alters. Rachel is amazing and a very intelligent attorney. She not only won my case but also was able to get my back pay for 6 months.

I also cannot say enough about Sonia Nogueira. Sonia was always quick to answer any of my questions. I would usually hear back from her within hours of sending her a email. I do not know where I would be if I hadn’t contacted them. My family and I cannot thank them enough. Don’t let an insurance company tell you they are not responsible for paying you. I paid them for 20 years monthly and they looked for any reason they could not to have to pay me when I needed my benefit. Thank you Rachel and Sonia for all you guys do.

Speak With An Attorney Now

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