Articles Posted in Eating Disorder Claims

California Department of Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has opened an investigation into allegations that health insurer, Aetna, denies insureds’ claims and requests for prior authorization for medical care without ever reviewing medical records. Although Aetna’s improper utilization review practices come as no surprise to the attorneys at our office, this revelation has sparked widespread, national media attention.

The allegations giving rise to Commissioner Jones’ investigation into Aetna’s claims handling practices come from videotaped deposition testimony of Dr. Jay Ken Iinuma who served as medical director for Aetna’s Southern California business operations between March 2012 and February 2015. During the deposition, Dr. Iinuma said he was following Aetna’s training when he never once looked at patients’ medical records himself before denying their claims for coverage.

Dr. Iinuma’s deposition was taken as part of a lawsuit filed by a college student, Gillen Washington, who was denied coverage for an infusion of intravenous immunoglobin (IVIG) when he was 19 to treat a rare auto-immune disorder.  Washington sued Aetna in Orange County Superior Court for breach of contract and bad faith, alleging that Aetna’s “reckless withholding of benefits almost killed him.”  Aetna initially paid for Washington’s treatments (each fusion can cost up to $20,000) but when Washington asked Aetna to pre-authorize a November 2014 infusion, Aetna said it was obligated to review Washington’s medical records.  Aetna claims that Washington’s treating provider failed to timely provide medical records in response to Aetna’s pre-authorization review.  Washington counters Aetna’s narrative of the events surrounding Washington’s ongoing requests and medical need for IVIG treatment.  However, it was during Dr. Iinuma’s deposition, where the real bombshell in the case was revealed. The former Aetna medical director testified that he never read Washington’s medical records and knew nothing about the disorder Washington was suffering from despite denying Washington’s pre-authorization request and signing the denial letter.  Dr. Iinuma further testified that most of his work was done online and he would rarely if ever consult with an Aetna nurse about a particular claim prior to denying it.

In a story that’s far too common, Montreal writer Samuel Archibald recently shared his story of what he called “abandonment by his insurer.” While away from work on leave to treat his depression, Archibald was unknowingly tracked on social media by his insurance company – and everyday simple information about his life was used against him to deny his health claim. Out for a run? He must not be depressed. Eating a meal with family? He must not be depressed. Or at least these are the hasty judgments that his insurer made about his mental health. Did they take into account that exercise can be a wonderful natural anti-depressant? Did they take into account that eating is necessary to survive, and spending time with family can be a healthy part of treatment and recovery? Were they even medically trained to make this type of conclusion, and if so, is it ethical to make this type of conclusion without actually treating a patient in person? The questions go on and on, and in Archibald’s outrage, he took pen to paper and brought light to a very complicated issue in the insurance world. If their job is to help people when they are sick and in need, why are they so often leaving people hanging? Why are they causing harm?

Insurance companies have a bad reputation for paying health claims, and here’s why – they have a long history of denying claims and leaving people in the dark. Leaving people confused. Leaving people in financial distress. Leaving people to suffer without the support they are entitled to.

So what’s the reasoning behind all the denials? The insurer has a bottom line – and unfortunately the bottom line is not your health and wellness. “It’s an insurance company that administers the plan, that decides on the claim, and ultimately has to foot the bill if the benefit is granted – and that’s a conflict of interest that everyone can easily see,” said Sean M. Anderson, a University of Illinois expert in employee benefit plan policy and regulation.

Founded in 2013 by former Congressman Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), The Kennedy Forum focuses on advancing evidence-based practices, policies, and programming in mental health and substance use issues. This is achieved through promoting public discourse in health and addiction issues, ensuring equal coverage for patients living with mental health and/or substance use disorders; and advancing prevention and treatment throughout the entire continuum of the healthcare delivery system. The Kennedy Forum’s collaborative partnerships help to foster greater provider accountability, integration and coordination, cutting-edge technologies, and brain fitness and health. The Kennedy Forum’s most recent step forward in improving the lives of individuals living with mental illness and addiction, and promoting behavioral health for all is the Parity Registry. To learn more about The Kennedy Forum, visit https://thekennedyforum.org/.

Insurance companies continue to violate the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, which requires them to treat diseases of the brain, such as clinical depression and opioid addiction, the same way they treat illnesses of the body, such cancer and heart disease. The Parity Registry is a powerful tool to help families fight back. The Parity Registry is the only resource in the United States where consumers, family members, providers, case managers, and legal advocates can:

  • Learn how to file an appeal with their health plan.

When you think of what lawyers do for a living, the first thing you probably think of is arguing over a case in front of a judge.

You may be surprised to learn, then, that in the federal courts this staple of practicing law seems to be on the way out. The federal district courts – the trial courts of the federal system – are increasingly holding fewer and fewer oral arguments. Some district courts even have a standing default rule that they won’t hear oral argument on a motion unless the presiding judge explicitly asks for it.

This trend is even more accentuated in the federal circuit courts – the appellate courts of the federal system. While the Supreme Court of the United States holds oral argument in almost all of its cases, the circuit courts of appeal do not.

Mental health issues are definitely more widely spoken about in todays society. But lip service doesn’t necessarily help with the overwhelming challenges a person has to face in living with a mental illness.

Mental illness is more common than any of us would like. According to the National Institute of Mental Health there were an estimated 43.4 million adults aged 18 or older in the United States living with a mental illness in 2015. This number represented 17.9% of all U.S. adults. (See https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/any-mental-illness-ami-among-us-adults.shtml).

The National Alliance on Mental Illness reports the following statistics regarding mental illness rates in the United States:

As you know, churches occupy a special place in the law. For example, the First Amendment bars the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and churches, indeed almost all religioous institutions, get special tax treatment from the IRS.

However, you may not know that this distinction can also affect your employee benefits. Almost all employee benefits are governed by a federal law called ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974). This law provides various protections, including imposing a fiduciary duty on your employer to act in your best interests in administering your benefits.

However, if you are a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan established by a church (or other religious organization), your benefits are not governed by ERISA, because ERISA has an exemption for “church plans.” (There is also an exemption for government plans.) As a result, you may lose protections under ERISA if you are a church employee.

Kantor & Kantor is happy to announce that it has won an important victory in New Jersey on behalf of a client with bulimia nervosa. The decision touches upon issues that we see too often in health insurance denials and long-term disability denials.

Our client, whose name is being kept anonymous to protect her privacy, began experiencing symptoms of her eating disorder when she was only eight years old. The eating disorder was left untreated for ten years. When she entered a residential treatment facility for her bulimia in September 2011, the facility submitted a claim for benefits to her insurance company, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey.

In a series of concurrent reviews, Horizon and its behavioral health managed care partner, Magellan Behavioral Health, paid for the first three weeks of treatment, but refused to pay past that date, contending that the treatment she was receiving was no longer “medically necessary.”

There may come a time in your life when you will need to consult with a lawyer – whether it be good news or bad news. We routinely speak with individuals who have had life, health, and disability claims denied by their insurance companies. Understandably, this is a very difficult time for the individuals who call us. We understand that, and try to make the process simple…but we need your help.

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 a successful outcome for our clients.

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

For over 25 years, I have been representing individuals who have had life, health, and disability claims denied by their insurance companies.   I have represented over 3,000 people.   What is so disheartening to me is that I hear from clients again and again that they “almost gave up before calling” me. They tell me they were beaten down by the process, convinced their insurance company must be right, or that they didn’t know there were lawyers who specialized in handling their kind of case on a contingent basis.   While sometimes the client HAS waited too long for us to help them, usually my law firm, Kantor & Kantor, is able to step in and successfully resolve their claim.

However, I wonder just how many DO give up unnecessarily.   While my view of the insurance industry may appear very cynical, I am 100% convinced that the industry employs a strategy of denying as many claims as possible in the hope that claimants will just give up and go away.   I could write pages upon pages of stories about clients who had almost given up, but for whom we were able to obtain benefits with nothing more than a well written letter.   It sometimes seems like the insurance company is daring their insured to challenge the denial, or to get a lawyer.   If they do, the insurance company will reconsider its denial. If not, the denial will stand and the insurance company will keep the benefits which are rightfully yours.

In the last month, I have obtained over a $1,000,000 in total benefits for several clients who separately told me that they had seriously considered giving up before calling my firm.   This led to me to come back to a familiar thought, which was to wonder about all the people who did simply give up.   I decided to write this blog in the hope that maybe ONE insured might read it, and decide not to give up.   I am not writing this to get business. I have more than I need.   I practice in California, but this blog might be read by someone in Florida, or Illinois, or New Jersey, for example. If it is, and you were considering giving up trying to get your benefits, I am not suggesting you call me.   Go on the internet, or call your State Bar, and find an experienced attorney in your State.   The worst thing that happens, is that no one will take your case  —  but what if they will?

Contact Information