California Insurance Lawyer Blog

In case you missed it Good Morning America did a segment in April (2008) on Susan Kristoff, from West Palm Beach, Fla., who suffered from potentially deadly form of breast cancer. (We blogged it earlier.) She applied to CIGNA for payment of her long term disability insurance benefits and was repeatedly denied. Click to watch the original video.

After ABC started investigating for its segment on TV, CIGNA paid the claim. As a result of the Good Monring America show, dozens of other people called or wrote to ABC to report similar stories. You can read about this, and even watch the follow-up video on the ABC website by clicking here.

We deal with these denials every day. And, it's not just CIGNA we battle with. We have similar cases against MetLife, Unum, Standard, Hartford, Aetna, and others. Hopefully, this ABC report will cause these insurance companies to think twice before denying claims without a full and fair investigation of the facts. AK

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

Last month we wrote how about MetLife v. Glenn had then recently been argued before the Supreme Court. Last week the decision was handed down. For the most part, it is a good step in the right direction...just not a very big step, at least as far as California and other insured’s (in the 9th Circuit) are concerned.

In Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Glenn, –U.S.–, 2008 WL 2444796 (June 19, 2008), the Supreme Court held that an insurance company which had the financial obligation to pay the claim, was not entitled to unfettered deference by the courts to its claim decision. This, even when the insurance policy gives the insurance company absolute discretion to make claims decisions. Rather, trial courts must factor in an insurer’s financial conflict of interest when reviewing the propriety of a claim decision.

For some time, the landscape in ERISA cases has been such that a trial court does not review the merits of the claim decision. Instead, when an employer granted “discretion” to an insurer, a trial court would only review whether the insurer acted “unreasonably” during the claim process. Oftentimes, the courts would never even get to the question of whether the claimant was disabled and entitled to benefits. Proving that an insurer acted “unreasonable” during the claim process was and is a very difficult burden for a claimant seeking to overturn a benefit denial.

In Ms. Glenn’s case, the Court was of the opinion that MetLife’s conflict of interest had influenced the claim decision and therefore, MetLife was not entitled to the full discretion it claimed. In its decision, the Court questioned claims practices we see all too often in benefit denials. For example, MetLife encouraged Ms. Glenn to apply for Social Security benefits, which would benefit MetLife financially since it could reduce its own liability by the amount of Ms. Glenn’s Social Security Award. Although MetLife took the financial benefit of the Award, it then virtually ignored the signficance of the Award and terminated Ms. Glenn’s disability benefits. The Court was also extremely critical of MetLife’s “selective review” of Ms. Glenn’s medical evidence. MetLife relied upon its own physician’s reports and discounted or ignored the evidence which supported Ms. Glenn’s disability.

Much of what the Glenn case represents had already been articulated by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Alta Health v. Abatie. We believe the Glenn decision will reinforce Abatie, and help to further influence judges to more critically review insurer’s claim decisions on their merits, as opposed to abjectly deferring to the administrator’s decisions. All in all, we believe the Glenn decision will help us help our clients obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. CC & AK

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

After more than two years of fighting, five months spent submitting claims forms, a protracted appeal, a lawsuit and a call from ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” Susan Kristoff, unable to work and being treated for stage 4 cancer, finally received her long-term disability benefits.
Cigna, her insurer, announced that its change of heart resulted from “additional information” uncovered during Susan’s appeal. Susan’s lawyer Alicia Grisham thinks differently. “The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claims,” Grisham said, describing a tactic known as “slow walking.”

We’ve seen this before: Bury the policyholder in mountains of claims forms, move your customer service department off-shore, keep your clients on hold, lose the paperwork, deny the claim, ask for more information, subject the sick or injured claimant to a confusing and prolonged appeal process, delay, deny, delay, deny, and perhaps the insured will give up or die.

The sad fact is that there are enough people in Susan Kristoff’s situation to keep “Good Morning America” on the air well into the next century.

Is the answer, as Grisham suggests, penalizing insurance companies for slow walking by allowing punitive damages in consumer lawsuits? Right now, the federal law known as ERISA protects disability insurers from such punitive damages in employee welfare benefit cases, and that give insurers little incentive to speed up claims processing and appeals.

At the moment, a policyholder’s best protection against slow walking is speed dialing an experienced disability insurance lawyer the moment a claim is denied. Two years without income is too long to wait, even if it means you end up featured on “Good Morning America.”

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , ERISA , Insurance Bad Faith , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

After more than two years of fighting, five months spent submitting claims forms, a protracted appeal, a lawsuit and a call from ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” Susan Kristoff, unable to work and being treated for stage 4 cancer, finally received her long-term disability benefits.
Cigna, her insurer, announced that its change of heart resulted from “additional information” uncovered during Susan’s appeal. Susan’s lawyer Alicia Grisham thinks differently. “The insurance companies understand that if they deny and deny claims, then many of the claimants will never pursue their claims,” Grisham said, describing a tactic known as “slow walking.”

We’ve seen this before: Bury the policyholder in mountains of claims forms, move your customer service department off-shore, keep your clients on hold, lose the paperwork, deny the claim, ask for more information, subject the sick or injured claimant to a confusing and prolonged appeal process, delay, deny, delay, deny, and perhaps the insured will give up or die.

The sad fact is that there are enough people in Susan Kristoff’s situation to keep “Good Morning America” on the air well into the next century.

Is the answer, as Grisham suggests, penalizing insurance companies for slow walking by allowing punitive damages in consumer lawsuits? Right now, the federal law known as ERISA protects disability insurers from such punitive damages in employee welfare benefit cases, and that give insurers little incentive to speed up claims processing and appeals.

At the moment, a policyholder’s best protection against slow walking is speed dialing an experienced disability insurance lawyer the moment a claim is denied. Two years without income is too long to wait, even if it means you end up featured on “Good Morning America.”

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , ERISA , Insurance Bad Faith , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments about what standard to use when reviewing an insurance company denial of ERISA welfare benefits (employer provided long term disability insurance). MetLife v. Glenn, 06-923. Under current law, an insurance company can make a terribly unfair decision to deny employee welfare benefits, and if the benefit plan contains some “magic words” a court can be prevented from reviewing such a decision on the merits, and instead, forced to let the unfair denial stand. Those magic words, notoriously known as “discretionary clauses” give the insurance company full discretion to interpret policy language and make claims decisions. Some federal districts have developed case law which requires a reviewing court to give consideration to the fact that an insurance company in the position to both pay the claim, and grant or deny benefits, stands in an inherently conflicted position. If it can be shown that such conflict tainted the claim decision making, then some lesser degree of discretion should be given, and the insurance company’s decision given more scrutiny. The problem lies in the reality that different courts look upon these circumstances differently, and there is no one general rule to be easily and consistently applied when an insurance company plays a dual and conflicted role.

In Wanda Glenn’s case, and as in so many other disability benefits cases that pass through our offices – the only entity determining the employee isn’t disabled is the insurance company acting as a plan administrator. For Ms. Glenn, her doctor diagnosed that if she returned to work she could die. The Social Security Administration determined that she was disabled and paid her government benefits. Incredibly, MetLife alone, decided there must be a job somewhere for her, so it denied her claim, and also thereby avoided having to pay her benefits. For additional detail on the facts in Glenn, click here.

For the actual Supreme Court transcript of the hearing, which can give you a sense of how unclear (even for the Supreme Court), and frustrating this system is click here.

The bottom line is that it just isn’t fair for insurance companies to be making claims decisions that are insulated from full scrutiny or “de novo” review by the courts. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will establish a rule that recognizes, and prevents this egregious conduct in the future.

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

We have been helping people with claims against insurance companies for over 18 years. Obviously, there is a lot to know about this process. From the countless claim appeals and lawsuits we have handled over the years, three basic, yet critical considerations rise to the top of our list of things to keep in mind when making a health related insurance claim:

1) ALWAYS GET A COPY OF THE POLICY, AND READ IT, BEFORE MAKING YOUR CLAIM.

It may seem obvious to suggest a careful read of the policy, but we have encountered countless people who forget about this critical step. Almost every insurance policy is written with subtle (and not so subtle) limitations on or exceptions to coverage. Look for things such as “mental and nervous” or “own occupation vs. any occupation” in exceptions in Long Term Disability policies. In health policies, look for limitations on “experimental” or therapeutic treatments, brand name pharmaceuticals, eating or psychiatric disorders. Long term care policies might require lengthy periods of hospitalization, or skilled nursing as prerequisites to coverage, or may condition coverage on an unreasonable definition of incapacity. Insurance companies are notorious for trying to characterize a claim so that it falls within one of the limitations or exceptions, and oftentimes mischaracterize an unwary claimant’s own words or writings to try and support a denial.

Often, policies are governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) which is a Federal Law with very specific mandates about insurance claims, and can severely limit the available remedies.

2) PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE TIME LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN THE PLAN.

Almost every policy has specific time limitations relating to things such as when a claim must be made, how much time the insurance company has to respond to a claim, and/or how long a claimant has to file a lawsuit if the claim is denied. The time limits are one of the very first things to look at, and calendar, when reviewing your policy. You might be able to make some legal arguments to avoid the harsh consequences of failing to comply with these deadlines insofar as they pertain to pursuing your claim, but it is always wise to act as though the deadlines are absolute.

3) ALWAYS COMMUNICATE WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY IN WRITING, KEEP COPIES, AND USE CERTIFIED MAIL.

Insurance companies are in the practice of making copious notes about the substance of every phone conversation they have with an insured. The problem is, those notes may not always accurately reflect what you communicated, or even how the company representative communicated with you. The best solution to this is for you to send your questions in writing, AND to always confirm the substance of important conversations with a follow-up letter. If you can, try to get an email address for your representative, as email can serve as a very good substitute when sending letters via certified mail might be difficult.

Paying attention to these three simple rules related to insurance claims can greatly increase the probability of a successful claim, or if necessary, a successful lawsuit to force claim payment.

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , Health Insurance , Insurance Bad Faith , Life Insurance , LongTerm Care Insurance , LongTerm Disability (LTD) Insurance

Bookmark:

In January 2008, Lisa Kantor won an appellate decision for a client suffering from an bulimia. In Jacobs v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 04-57131 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2008), Laura Jacobs, was diagnosed with life-threatening bulimia, but was denied adequate treatment by her medical plan provider Kaiser. Kaiser did not offer adequate treatment for plan participants, and declined to refer Ms. Jacobs to an out-of-plan treatment facility. It further refused to pay for the cost of treatment when Ms. Jacobs’ mother obtained the care her daughter desperately needed by checking her into an eating-disorder treatment facility. Although the lower court found that Kaiser had not abused its discretion in denying treatment, the Court of Appeal ruled that her mother’s “decision to take Laura outside the Kaiser treatment system may have saved her daughter’s life.” The case was reversed and remanded with instructions for the lower court to reimburse the Jacobs’ for the non-plan services and to pay Ms. Kantor’s fees and costs.

Although the Jacobs case was unpublished, it is still part of only a few appellate decisions addressing the issue of health coverage for eating disorders. In January 2006, Lisa Kantor previously won the first published appellate decision in an eating disorder case where her client was denied benefits for in-patient treatment of bulimia. In Thompkins v. BC Life and Health Ins. Co., 414 F.Supp2d 953, (C.D.Cal. 2006), the Court of Appeal interpreted California’s mental health parity law AB88 to include beneficiaries who did not live or seek medical care in California. That law requires health insurance policies to cover treatment for mental illness (including eating disorders) on the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions. As such, BC Life and Health was obligated to pay Ms. Kantor’s client benefits under its plan.

Posted by Kantor & Kantor LLP | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: ERISA , Health Insurance

Bookmark: