Quiat on Claims : New York Disability Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Quiat : Uscher Quiat Uscher & Russo Law Firm : ERISA, Denied Claims

The scales of Justice weigh heavily in favor of insurance companies generally, but even more so in disability income claims. After all, insurers are well funded, have their health, and employ plenty of lawyers who are familiar with the “ins” and “outs of the business.

A typical disabled employee, on the other hand, frequently has little or no funding (being unable to work), has little experience in law, and hasn’t a single friend, relative or neighbor who even knows where a law school is located, let alone having attended one.

The issue of whether a mental or physical impairment truly prevents a claimant from performing the duties of employment can be a complex question, even if it is conscientiously considered by people who have no financial interest in the outcome. When you add the financial interest insurance companies have in the outcome of these questions, the issue becomes more vexing because if they agree that the employee is disabled, they pay – and insurance companies hate that.

This leads to a situation in which insurers make claimants run through hoops in an effort to discourage them because there is very little downside to such conduct. Most states make each litigant pay for his or her own legal fees and costs. So, if an insurer makes a claimant sue and loses, what’s the downside?

In the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes New York, Connecticut and Vermont, ERISA claimants get a leg up from a line of cases starting with Birmingham v. SoGen-Swiss International Corporation Retirement Plan, 718 F. 2d 515 (2nd Cir. 1983), which hold that although the award of counsel fees and costs is discretionary with the court, the 2d Circuit favors awarding counsel fees in ERISA cases unless there is a particular justification for not doing so. This judicial attitude in the Circuit makes insurance companies think twice in ERISA matters before saying “No” just because they can with impunity.

A road map for evaluating the merits of the right to attorney’s fees, was set forth in Chambless v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan, 815 F. 2d 869 (2nd Cir. 1987) and has generally been followed in the Circuit. The major points of the scorecard are:

• Culpable conduct (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) by the insurer.

• The defendant has the financial resources to satisfy an award.

• The merits of the case favor such an award.

• The award of attorney fees would tend to deter defendant insurer and others from violating ERISA regulations in the future.

• The results in the case confer a common benefit in that the defendant and other insurers will think twice before violating ERISA’s requirements in future.

Nobody wants an illness or injury which eliminates their income or employment. But for those unfortunate enough to face this condition in the 2d Circuit, there is some comfort in knowing that if they are covered by ERISA, arbitrary denials can cause insurers to bleed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some recent case reports made us wonder once again why IMEs are called Independent Medical Examinations. They are hardly “independent”.

These “examinations” are the evidentiary foundation upon which disability insurance companies rely to deny disability income claims so that these denials can withstand subsequent scrutiny from the courts.

How do you “fix” a game so that it favors you? When you are the manager, you pick the players who you think will win the game for you. Medical “experts” who can be counted on to deny a disability are key to getting the outcome the carrier is looking for. That part is obvious. What is not obvious is that Congress and the courts have permitted this corrupt practice to flourish, making this already one-sided affair a knockout blow for disabled claimants.

ERISA, supposedly passed by Congress to make it easier for employees to level the playing field, gives the insurer, which is also an administrator of a plan, discretion to determine whether a disability claim is covered by a disability policy. It doesn’t take a great brain to figure that if a claim is denied, the money that would have been paid to the claimant goes right to the insurance company’s bottom line.

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Firestone v. Bruch, 489 US 101 (1989) that courts must give deference under ERISA to the finding of the plan administrator as to whether a claim is covered, insurance companies have been having a field day denying claims that should have been paid and having the courts, with their hands tied by Firestone, back them up.

What does the IME have to do with this? Insurers have gathered to themselves a coterie of doctors who know only one thing – which side of the bread their butter is on. These “experts” make all or most of their income year after year from insurance company examinations (some in excess of $1 million per). They know that if they were actually impartial in their work, their source of income would dry up fast. So, these “independents” lean heavily in favor of their meal ticket. The result? Disabled policyholders, who may have been paying premiums for years, suffer.

On top of this, courts have had their hands tied since 1989, and have to give these slanted medical reports not only credence, but deference. If any of these so-called “independent” medical reports supports the denial of benefits by the administrator, the court has to uphold the denial even if the court may feel, on the basis of the evidence it has heard, that the denial is flat wrong.

So, why are these reports commonly referred to as “independent”. They are anything but.

(This blog is the first in a series of blogs we intend to publish on the misnamed “Independent” Medical Examination).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link