ERISA

April 16, 2019

May is Lupus Awareness Month

Lupus is a chronic, autoimmune disease that can damage any part of the body (skin, joints, and/or organs inside the body). Chronic means that the signs and symptoms tend to last longer than six weeks and often for many years.

In lupus, something goes wrong with your immune system, which is the part of the body that fights off viruses, bacteria, and germs (“foreign invaders,” like the flu). Normally our immune system produces proteins called antibodies that protect the body from these invaders. Autoimmune means your immune system cannot tell the difference between these foreign invaders and your body’s healthy tissues (“auto” means “self”) and creates autoantibodies that attack and destroy healthy tissue. These autoantibodies cause inflammation, pain, and damage in various parts of the body.

Lupus is also a disease of flares (the symptoms worsen and you feel ill) and remissions (the symptoms improve and you feel better).

April 12, 2019

May Is Mental Health Awareness Month

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

Mental Health Awareness Month has been observed in May in the United States since 1949 by Presidential proclamation. Each year millions of Americans face the reality of living with a mental condition. According to the National Institute for Mental Health, an estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older—about one in four adults—suffer from a diagnosable mental illness in any given year. Not only are these adults affected by one mental illness; 45% of these adults meet criteria for two or more disorders.

Mental illness is a real and treatable set of conditions that includes major depression, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, panic attacks, generalized anxiety disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and schizophrenia, among dozens of others. These disorders are serious enough to significantly impact a person’s daily life functioning, whether at school, work or in their relationships with others.

Among children, ADHD, behavior problems, anxiety, and depression are the most commonly diagnosed mental disorders. According to The Journal of Pediatrics, 2018,

April 8, 2019

Use of Association Health Plans Struck Down

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

In a win for healthcare consumers, a federal judge in Washington D.C. last week struck down major parts of a Department of Labor regulation that expanded the ability of small employers and sole proprietors to band together to form Association Health Plans (AHPs) to evade key requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Although AHPs are bound by some of the requirements of the ACA, they do not have to provide all of the benefits mandated under the ACA, and they can use factors such as age, gender and occupation to set premiums when other small plans may not do so. While the Department of Labor touted the regulation as providing a way for small businesses to get more affordable health insurance coverage, critics said that the new regulation was an invitation to fraud, by giving incentives to shady operators to offer cheap plans that are literally too good to be true. State and federal regulators have regularly tried to clamp down on such fraudulent schemes, which have left workers and their families with hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid medical claims over the years. In addition, many saw the regulation as a not so subtle way to undermine the ACA, by gutting many of the consumer protections and attracting healthier people away from the ACA marketplaces with lower premiums.

Attorneys general from eleven states and the District of Columbia brought suit, claiming the regulation violated both the ACA and ERISA, the federal statute that regulates employer-provided healthcare plans and other employee benefits. The district court agreed, holding that the regulation could not be squared with ERISA because it allowed unrelated employers and business owners with no employees to join AHPs, thereby expanding the concept of ERISA healthcare plans beyond the context of employment. The court also concluded that the regulation created absurd results under the ACA, and would “undermine the market structure that Congress so carefully crafted.” The court has asked the government for briefing on whether any part of the regulation can stand given last week’s ruling. Once the Court has ruled on that final issue, the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal. In the meantime, many consumer healthcare advocates are celebrating the court’s order disallowing what they saw as an attempt to do an end-run around ERISA and the ACA.

April 8, 2019

The Importance of Neuropyschological Testing in Disability Claims Involving Cognitive Impairment

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

If you suffer from certain medical conditions including Multiple Sclerosis, Complex Seizure Disorder, Dementia to name just a few, you may also suffer from cognitive impairment which can affect your ability to perform the duties of your job. If you become disabled and make a claim for disability benefits, it is extremely important to document the cognitive impairment you suffer. Neuropsychological testing is the way to document your cognitive impairment.

If you suffer from cognitive impairment, you likely are already treating with a neurologist. He or she may order this testing as a routine part of your care. If that has happened, you may be able to use the test results as part of the evidence you provide to your disability insurer. If that has not already happened, we strongly recommend you get this testing done to support your claim. Note that if your neurologist orders the testing as part of your treatment and care, your medical insurance may cover the cost, which is high. If, however, you have the testing done on your own or through your attorney, insurance most likely will not cover the cost as it is forensic testing – testing to provide evidence.

Not all neuropsychologists understand the intricacies of documenting cognitive impairment to support a disability claim. At Kantor & Kantor, we work with several highly esteemed and experienced neuropsychologists who do understand what we need to document. They work with us to determine the which tests to conduct to best document your cognitive losses.

April 5, 2019

Have You Heard of a Psychiatric Advance Directive?

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

Seeking treatment when symptoms from mental health conditions become severe can be scary. A person experiencing paranoia, delusions, or hallucinations may not be able to advocate for themselves. They may not be able to tell doctors and nurses which medications they have adverse reactions to, how to best treat their symptoms, and who to call in case of emergencies. This may lead to them being put in situations that exacerbate rather than relieve their symptoms.

One tool that can help is a Psychiatric Advance Directive, or PAD. A PAD is written by a currently competent person who lives with a mental illness. The PAD describes treatment preferences and/or names a health care proxy or agent to make decisions if the person is unable to do so for themselves.

What a PAD Can and Cannot Do

April 4, 2019

April is Parkinson’s Disease Awareness Month

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

April is Parkinson’s Disease Awareness Month, so we thought we would write a blog entry talking about the illness and the organization that provides information, support and education for those who suffer from Parkinson’s.

The Parkinson’s Foundation (PF) works to find a cure, to advance research, to increase knowledge, to empower the community and to ensure that those living with the disease enjoy the best quality of life possible.

Many of our clients suffer from Parkinson’s. This organization can provide valuable information for our clients and their families on topics that include: understanding the illness, coping with a recent diagnosis, managing Parkinson’s and support for care partners and family. These are just a few examples of the many resources available on the PF’s website.

April 4, 2019

Are Today’s Teenagers More Susceptible to Depression and Anxiety?

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

In the last decade in the U.S., teenagers and young adults are experiencing a dramatic increase in mental health conditions that is not present in other American age groups. According to a recent article in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2010 teenagers are much more likely to develop major depression, have suicidal thoughts, or live with crippling anxiety than teenagers from the 2000s.

Why are today’s teenagers more susceptible to depression and anxiety? Researchers who studied the data theorize that because the biggest increase occurred around 2011, it is unlikely the cause is the political climate, the economy, or genetics. Instead this uptick in mental health concerns is attributed to the cultural changes in the way young people spend their time outside school and work and how they communicate with each other. Teenagers are sleeping less, exercising less, and spending less time interacting with other people face-to-face, instead spending significantly more time scrolling through social media and communicating electronically. The researchers conclude that teenagers and young adults should focus on activities known to improve mental health – face-to-face social interaction, exercise, and sleep. You can read more about the study and its findings HERE.

Put the Phones Down for a Bit

April 3, 2019

The Likes of Sedgwick, Reed Group, Cigna, or Aetna Can Have a Conflict of Interest When Acting as a Third-Party ERISA Claims Administrator

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

Many large companies offer employees “self-insured” or “self-funded” ERISA plans to provide disability insurance or health insurance benefits. However, these companies are not in the business of administering health or disability claims. This makes sense. Boeing doesn’t know how to evaluate a short term disability claim. Intel isn’t in the long term disability business. AT&T doesn’t know how to read medical billing codes. So, instead of trying to do this itself, most companies hire other companies to administer the disability or health insurance claims.

These “third-party” companies are either in the business of administering ERISA benefit plans (e.g. Sedgwick and Reed Group) or are already administering these types of claims because they offer medical or disability insurance themselves (e.g. Cigna and Aetna). In theory, a benefit of this structure is that the entity making the claims decision is not the same entity that has to pay the claim. There is no structural conflict of interest.

How do courts view this type of structure if a lawsuit is filed? In such a situation there was a denial of disability benefits or a medical claim was denied. If the ERISA Plan conferred discretionary authority to the claim administrator – and almost all do this – the court reviews the denial of benefits under the plan for an abuse of discretion. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Brunch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989). Once the court determines that the insurance policy unambiguously grants discretion to the entity that denied the claim – here the third party administrator – the court must determine whether the administrator or fiduciary was operating under a conflict of interest. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (MetLife) v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105 (2008) (“Often the entity that administers the plan, such as an employer or an insurance company, both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket. We here decide that this dual role creates a conflict of interest; that a reviewing court should consider that conflict as a factor in determining whether the plan administrator abused its discretion in denying benefits; and that the significance of the factor will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.”); Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Abuse of discretion review applies to a discretion-granting plan even if the administrator has a conflict of interest. But Firestone also makes clear that the existence of a conflict of interest is relevant to how a court conducts abuse of discretion review.”).

April 2, 2019

Plaintiffs Seek Class Action Status for Pension Overstatement Claims Against Northrop Grumman and Hewitt/Alight

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

An amended complaint filed March 29 in Bafford, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., alleges that Northrop Grumman and its outside administrator, Hewitt Associates LLC (now known as Alight Solutions LLC), violated federal and state law by persistently overstating the pension benefits earned by certain Northrop Grumman employees.

Plaintiffs Stephen Bafford and Evelyn Wilson each worked for Northrop Grumman in the 1980’s and 1990’s, then worked for TRW Corporation, and then returned to Northrop Grumman employment when Northrop Grumman acquired TRW in 2002. For years before each Plaintiff retired from Northrop Grumman, the Defendants provided them with pension benefit statements that showed their pensions being calculated on the basis of their highest three years of pay from their second period of Northrop Grumman employment.

But in early 2017, Defendants notified each Plaintiff that their pensions would be reduced by more than 50 percent because the pensions should have been calculated based on earnings from each Plaintiff’s first period of Northrop Grumman employment. Defendants further demanded repayment of pension amounts already paid to Plaintiffs, including more than $35,000 demanded from Ms. Wilson.

March 29, 2019

Cancer Survivor Kate Weissman Files Spearheading Class Action Lawsuit to Expose UnitedHealthcare’s Pursuit of Profits over Patient Protection and Care

by Kantor & Kantor LLP

Kate Weissman is willing to brave litigation with a $150 billion health insurance company to bring about change in our healthcare system. On March 26, 2019, Ms. Weissman filed a class action lawsuit to challenge what she alleges to be UnitedHealthcare’s unfair and deceptive policies and procedures for determining whether a prescribed treatment or medication is medically necessary (utilization review). Ms. Weissman alleges that UnitedHealthcare’s utilization review process is skewed toward the denial of coverage based upon inadequate internal medical policies placed in the hands of unqualified medical directors. This alleged institutional pattern and practice of wrongful conduct results in the systematic denial of coverage for medically necessary proton beam radiation therapy (“PBT “) for UnitedHealthcare’s insured members suffering with cancer, while offering coverage for far less expensive, though far more harmful, conventional radiation treatment.

In October 2015, 30-year-old Ms. Weissman was diagnosed with stage IIB cervical cancer. After various treatments and a relentless battle for her life, her doctors from Massachusetts General Hospital recommended PBT to avoid grave damage to surrounding tissue and organs. On April 6, 2016, UnitedHealthcare denied coverage, contending that PBT is experimental or investigational or unproven. Ms. Weissman alleges that PBT is an established form of treatment that is widely accepted by physicians, government agencies and many insurers and other payers, including Medicare and Medicaid. UnitedHealthcare relied on its own internal policies, as interpreted and applied to Ms. Weissman’s case by UnitedHealthcare’s medical directors, in denying coverage for PBT. UnitedHealthcare would only agree to cover the more conventional intensity-modulated radiation therapy, which is about half the cost of PBT.

Ms. Weissman, who volunteers with Cervivor to advocate for the cervical cancer community, recognizes that she was fortunate enough to have the $95,000.00 to pay for the proton beam treatment ordered by her doctors so that she would not have to settle for the more dangerous and damaging conventional treatment. She is now fighting for those who cannot afford that choice.