Parents, educators and clinicians are seeing an alarming increase in mental health problems among young people. An ongoing topic of discussion among educators, medical health professionals and politicians is what can be done to curb this problem.

Following similar moves in Florida, Oregon and Utah, a recently introduced bill in the California State Legislature would allow students time off to treat or attend to mental health needs. Senate Bill 849, written by California State Senator Anthony Portantino (D-La Cañada Flintridge), would allow students in elementary school through high school time out of school to treat or attend to mental health needs without risk of being considered truant, a violation that could lead to penalties for students and fines for parents.  Under California’s current education code, mental and behavioral health problems are not eligible for excused absences.

Studies show that a rising number of school-age children in California are struggling with depression, anxiety or thoughts of self-harm. According to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the second-leading cause of death among young people ages 15-24. The CDC reported in 2017 that the number of girls 15-19 committing suicide had doubled from 2007 to 2015. The statistics cited show 5.1 suicides per 100,000 in that age group — a 40-year high. The boys suicide rate in that age group climbed 30 percent, to 14.2 per 100,000, in the same time period.

Over the past 15 years, I have represented hundreds of claimants in their claims for disability benefits governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, also known as ERISA.  If an ERISA disability claim is denied, a claimant must appeal that denial to the plan administrator or insurance company before he or she is able to file a lawsuit.  The appeals process is referred to as exhausting administrative remedies (though there is no administrative agency involved). The ERISA Regulations provide rules that an administrator must follow in order to give a claimant a “full and fair review.”  See ERISA § 503; 29 CFR § 2560.503-1 (Claims procedure).

Effective April 1, 2018, the ERISA Regulations were changed to require that an insurance company or administrator provide to the claimant copies of new evidence it obtains after a claimant submits an appeal so that the claimant has an opportunity to respond to the new evidence before the insurance company issues a final claim decision.  Some insurance companies, however, refuse to provide this evidence to claimants who filed their disability claims before April 1, 2018.

What if you fall into this pre-April 1, 2018 category?  Do you have any rights to know what the insurance company is relying on before it issues a final decision on your appeal?

Kantor & Kantor, LLP, one of the most experienced law firms in the nation dealing with litigating insurance claims against insurance companies, is proud that once again five Partners have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Super Lawyers list.  Co-Founders Lisa Kantor and Glenn Kantor are joined by Senior Partners Alan Kassan and Corinne Chandler, and Partner Brent Dorian Brehm makes his fourth consecutive appearance.

No more than five percent of the lawyers in Southern California are selected by Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.

The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers Magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in their practice of law. For more information about Super Lawyers, go to SuperLawyers.com.

There comes a time in your life when you will need to consult with a lawyer – whether it be good news or bad news. A good lawyer works with you, helps you understand the situation, and guides you to the best possible result. At Kantor & Kantor we routinely speak with individuals who have had life, health, and disability claims denied by their insurance companies.

As lawyers we are well-versed in the practice of law, but we rely on the information from our clients to steer us in the right direction and guide each case. It takes TEAMWORK to get the best possible result for our clients.

Here are a few tips for talking to your lawyer and telling them what they need to know.

We represent many clients who have been denied long-term disability benefits in lawsuits against the insurance companies who have denied their claims. Many of our clients ask, “What is the value of my disability claim?”

This question usually presents itself in the context of mediation, which is a form of voluntary alternative dispute resolution, because our clients must decide whether to take the insurance company’s lump sum settlement offer. There are many factors to consider. To aid our clients’ decision-making process, we will prepare a “present value calculation” designed to capture the total value of all benefits in dispute.  In most circumstances, the value of your benefit can be broken up into two parts:  the past-due benefits and the future benefits.  Benefits, both past and future, are calculated by taking your net monthly benefit (total gross monthly benefit minus offsets” for other income you receive) and multiplying by the number of months benefits are due. However, past and future benefits have to be calculated differently in order to account for inflation.

Past-due benefits are calculated by multiplying the net monthly benefit by the number of months of past-due benefits you are owed. Then, we add interest to compensate you for the fact that, had you been properly paid your past-due benefits, those benefits would have been worth more in the past than they are in the present, because inflation has made the value of each dollar decrease over time.  Notably, the insurance carriers seldom factor in interest on the past-due benefits in the context of mediation. However, if your case does not settle and the court makes a decision in your favor, it has the discretion to award prejudgment interest on the past-due benefit. The percentages that courts award vary and range from the nominal interest amount rate dictated by 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (1-year constant maturity Treasury yield) to 10% interest. See, e.g., Blankenship v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Bos., 486 F.3d 620, 628 (9th Cir. 2007) (affirming award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 10.01 percent, compounded monthly); Oster v. Standard Ins. Co., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding current U.S. Treasury Rate at .3% too low and awarding prejudgment interest at the rate of 5% ).

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, an ERISA case challenging the prudence of fiduciary decisions with respect to an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP).  The Court granted certiorari to review whether the Second Circuit correctly applied the Court’s “more harm than good” standard set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer to a claim that fiduciaries, who were corporate insiders with information that the company stock was overvalued, should have made a corrective disclosure before allowing the plan to make continuing investments in that stock.

Of the three ERISA cases that Court is looking at this term, Jander is the most confounding and the argument yesterday did little to clear things up.  This is mostly because the case concerns the meaning and application of Dudenhoeffer, a decision that attempted to describe pleading standards in the hazy terrain where corporate securities obligations end and ERISA fiduciary duties begin.  But the fact that the Petitioners (IBM plan fiduciaries), the government and the plan participant all proposed different standards, only one of which was based on Dudenhoeffer, added to the confusion.

Several Justices expressed some concern that the petitioner’s broadest argument – that corporate insiders who are fiduciaries have no ERISA duties when they learn of problems with the company stock – and the government’s argument that almost any disclosure not required under securities law would be inconsistent with that regime, would require them to scrap Dudenhoeffer.  Perhaps most interestingly, Justice Gorsuch noted that corporate insiders don’t have to serve as fiduciaries and thus the problem presented in the case was, to some extent, self-created.  But he also questioned whether the securities laws might not be the most logical place to look when considering what actions a fiduciary with insider information should take to protect ESOPs.

In addition to dealing with short term disability benefits, long term disability benefits, and health insurance denials, many of our clients are also tasked with keeping track of changes to their Social Security benefits. Here are some of the changes that will take effect on January 1, 2020 for Social Security recipients –

  • Social Security recipients will get a 1.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in their monthly benefits starting in January. The average individual retired Social Security beneficiary is expected to see a monthly benefit jump from $1,479 to $1,503, an increase of roughly $24 per month or $288 for the year.
  • As a result of the COLA, the maximum monthly benefit a single recipient can get also will grow. That benefit will increase from $2,861 per month in 2019 to $3,011 per month in 2020.

Kantor & Kantor Partner Elizabeth Hopkins filed an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court on October 28, 2019 for The Pension Rights Center in support of the Ninth Circuit in Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee et al. v. Christopher M. Sulyma  The case is about whether workers get six years or three years to sue over ERISA violations.

Please see the brief here:  18-1116bsacPensionRightsCenter

For questions on the handling of your Pension benefits, please do not hesitate to contact Kantor & Kantor for a no-cost consultation at (800) 446-7529 or use our online contact form.

In his October 28, 2109 Opinion piece published by The Philadelphia Inquirer, Ross Waetzman opened with this harrowing sentence, “I almost died because of insurance prior authorization rules.” His story went on to share the details of how he nearly died as a result of the decision made by his insurer, Independence Blue Cross (“IBC” or “IBX”), to deny authorization of benefits for a test that had been recommended by Mr. Waetzman’s cardiologist.

The test Mr. Waetzman’s cardiologist had recommended was a cardiac catheterization. The test was necessary because Mr. Waetzman’s history of chest pain had been increasing in intensity, despite lifestyle changes he had made in an attempt to curb his symptoms. The cardiac catheterization was recommended by Mr. Waetzman’s cardiologist after less-invasive tests had been performed. Those less invasive tests, an EKG and a coronary calcium test, revealed that Mr. Waetzman was in the top 10% for his age and race for calcium deposits on his coronary arteries. With such deposits known to result in reduced blood flow to the heart, the cardiac catheterization was recommended to determine if Mr. Waetzman’s chest pain was a result of a blocked artery.

Unfortunately, when Mr. Waetzman’s cardiologist, Dr. Kenneth Mendel, called IBX, he was informed that “prior-authorization” for the cardiac catheterization was denied. IBX claimed that Mr. Waetzman did not meet all the necessary criteria to have the test and his only available option was to appeal the denial.

A functional capacity evaluation (FCE) is a series of tests that is used to measure a person’s functional physical ability to perform certain work-related tasks. A good, reliable FCE has validity measures embedded within the tests to show that the person taking the tests is putting forth the most effort he can, given his physical limitations. FCEs have many purposes, but in long term disability, we use them to provide objective support of a client’s physical restrictions and limitations with respect to his own occupation or any occupation, if that is the stage of his claim.

Often, in LTD cases, your physician will be asked to complete physical capacity forms. Having an FCE report will assist your doctor in this endeavor by providing her with the exact measurements she needs to provide her opinion.

If you have a condition such as degenerative disc disease, back pain with radiculopathy, fibromyalgia, or many other conditions that result in physical limitations, an FCE can be a very good tool to precisely measure exactly how limited you are by your disabling conditions. We can then use the FCE results to gather further support for your claim by giving it to your physician for her to review and use when she writes a letter of support.

Contact Information