Articles Tagged with disability

O’Ryan Law Firm recently filed an appeal for Long Term Disability benefits against Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston (Liberty Mutual) for wrongfully denying a participant’s benefits. The client was a long time employee of a large financial institution and was forced to stop working due to coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. The client underwent a coronary bypass in 2010 and had a dual-chamber cardioverter defibrillator implanted in 2015. He suffers from shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain, and experiences confusion. The high level of stress with the client’s occupation exacerbated the symptoms correlated to his illness. This stress exposed him to a possibility of a severe cardiac event or even death.

Despite the client’s treating physicians providing objective medical proof that he was unable to continue working full time due to his condition, Liberty Mutual hired a contracted physician to review his claim file. The hired contracted physician contended the client could perform a Sedentary occupation on a full time basis. In addition, the hired contracted physician erroneously claimed the client’s treating physician could perform a Sedentary occupation on a full time basis. When in fact, the treating physician never released the client to return to work full time.

Liberty Mutual originally approved the short term disability claim in full, but then turned around and denied his long term disability benefits based on the hired contracted physician review. In an attempt to solidify the client’s denial, Liberty Mutual hired a private investigator to perform surveillance. The private investigator failed to observe any real activity for four entire days, which was consistent with the client’s limitations. Liberty Mutual cited the following definition of “Disability” within the long term disability denial letter:

At the O’Ryan Law Firm, we have represented several clients who have become disabled due to the severe symptoms of Scleroderma.

According to the American College of Rheumatology:

WHAT IS SCLERODERMA?

O’Ryan Law Firm, on behalf of Plaintiff, Pamela H., recently filed a federal lawsuit against Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) (a subsidiary of Cigna). The Plaintiff was employed by Purdue University, which made her eligible for Purdue’s long-term disability plan, which was insured by LINA.

In Pamela H. v. Life Insurance Company of North America, the Plaintiff filed a disability lawsuit to gain the long-term disability benefits she deserved under the terms of the LINA policy.

Facts of the Case Against LINA

Plaintiff was employed by Purdue University from December 2004 until she became disabled on July 6, 2014 and unable to work. This was due to lumbar radiculopathy and rheumatoid arthritis. Plaintiff’s treating physicians provided objective medical proof that the Plaintiff was unable to continue working due to these ailments.

Plaintiff filed an application for long-term disability benefits and LINA denied her claim on November 3, 2014.
Continue reading

One of the most disabling symptoms for our disability clients at the O’Ryan Law Firm is chronic, severe pain. The type of pain that keeps you awake most of the night or forces you to lay down most of the day in order to alleviate the pain just a little bit. The pain that results from degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, neuropathy and failed back surgeries among other medical conditions. Disability insurance companies are loath to pay disability benefits when the most significant symptom is disabling pain. Oftentimes, the insurance company will discount considerable evidence that the chronic pain is a significant factor in the disability claim because many of the objective medical testing is “normal.” There are no x-rays, MRIs or CT scans that are able to document chronic, severe pain. However, many courts have held that a disability claimant can prove the severity of their pain by showing, with their medical records, repeated attempts to treat the pain including steroid injections, prescription medications, surgery, physical therapy and acupuncture. These treatment methods can show that a claimant is suffering from severe pain.

In this area, when there is an absence of testing to establish the source of pain, a claimant can show that they are disabled by chronic pain by proving that the claimant has diligently sought out treatment for the pain. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “medical science confirms that pain can be severe and disabling even in the absence of ‘objective’ medical findings, that is, test results that demonstrate a physical condition that normally causes pain of the severity claimed by the [plaintiff].” Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir.2004). Thus, while objective medical evidence must support a finding of an underlying impairment, subjective evidence can be used to demonstrate that the pain associated with that condition is disabling. Carradine, 360 F.3d 753; see also Hawkins v. First Union Disability Plan, 326 F.3d 914, 919 (7th Cir.2003) “Taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the evidence of [plaintiff’s] repeated attempts to seek treatment for his condition supports an inference that his pain, though hard to explain by reference to physical symptoms, was disabling.” Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 640, 645 (7th Cir. 2007). In Sandell v. Prudential Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4404487, *7 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 13, 2007), the court found that a record review commissioned by the plan administrator was not persuasive, in large part because the reviewing physician failed to consider the claimant’s subjective pain symptoms or address whether the claimant’s pain made it impossible for the plaintiff to hold full-time gainful employment. Similarly in Gessling v. Group Long Term Disability Plan for Employees of Sprint/United Management, 693 F. Supp.2d 856, 866 the Court held:

The record here also shows that Gessling aggressively pursued for several years a range of therapies for his pain, including the rhizotomies, acupuncture, epidural injections, and even hypnosis. Those efforts are hard to reconcile with a theory that Gessling was exaggerating or lying about his pain. See Diaz v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 499 F.3d 640, 646 (7th Cir.2007) (reversing summary judgment for plan under de novo review; efforts at therapy supported credibility of claimant’s complaints of pain); Carradine v. Barnhart, 360 F.3d 751, 755 (7th Cir.2004) (remanding denial of Social Security disability benefits based on subjective pain complaints where claimant had undergone extensive, varied, and intrusive pain therapies).