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.

DISABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY INFORMATION
Videos, Questions, Resolved Cases, Lawsuit Summaries & Company Reviews

disability insurance companies complaints

FAQ

Do you help Hartford claimants nationwide?

We represent Hartford 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 Hartford disability insurance policy?

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

How do you help Hartford claimants?

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

  • 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.

Dell & Schaefer Client Reviews   *****

Curt P.

Before my disability, I was an attorney with a successful energy and telecom practice. I know what it means to provide quality legal service: it entails expertise in the area(s) of law in which the lawyer practices; zealous advocacy on behalf the client, subject always to a professional tone and demeanor; objectivity and considered judgment; responsiveness in real-time; and last but not least, a great staff.

Steven Dell and his firm have demonstrated all of these qualities. They’ve been with me since the beginning, and nothing they have done has ever caused me concern. Quite the opposite. On my behalf, they take care of all communications with the disability insurance carrier and provide me such other expert advice as I have needed over what is now a five-year period. When you no longer have good health, I have found it to be a great relief to have them deal with the insurance company and to know I can rely on their wise counsel.

I also appreciate the firm’s technical sophistication. We communicate chiefly by email, which is not only efficient but less intrusive. When I’m having a particularly bad health day, I can always get to their emails after the storm has passed.

Anyone with claim with their disability insurance carrier would do well to hire Steven and his firm.

Read 424 reviews

Speak With An Attorney Now

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