Who's The Real Malingerer?

In disability income insurance circles the word “malingering” is always used to paint the claimant black, but the word “malingerer” should be applied to insurance companies far more often than to claimants, for many insurance companies are open and blatant “malingerers” when it comes to paying benefits.
 

This was made very clear in a recent opinion in the 7th Circuit when the court raked MetLife over the coals for using an arsenal of shady denial tactics to thwart an ERISA claim based on subjective complaints, (Holmstrom v. Metropolitan Life, 2010 WL 3024870, 7th Cir., 2010).
 

In this case, the appellate court found a litany of reasons why the denial of benefits to Holmstrom was “arbitrary and capricious”, even though the Federal District Court from which the appeal was taken had found that MetLife’s denial of benefits was sound.
 

Why do courts (and, generally, the public) have no difficulty in believing a claimant is “malingering” when seeking benefits, but never seem to seriously consider whether an insurer is “malingering” when it comes to paying benefits?
 

One might reasonably ask if a corporation which stays alive on profits is any less likely to shave morality to obtain a larger income than is an individual who stays alive on work income and might shave morality to stop working and use benefits to keep the family going?
 

Some claimants do try to malinger by not working and collecting benefits when they are not actually disabled. Insurance companies are right to contest these claims vigorously. But, there also compelling evidence that some disability insurance carriers make it a policy to actively “malinger’ on paying benefits. One only has to go back to 2004 to the Unum settlement with 49 states to see the pattern of no-pay strategies employed by these insurers. Yet, insurance companies are still not labeled “malingerers”. Why not?
 

When individuals are suspected of malingering, there is a battery of tests used by insurers to try to detect the falsity of the claim for benefits. Insurers have used them for years and years and have had many a success in beating down a claimant, some deservedly so, some not.
 

Since it is abundantly clear that insurance companies malinger when it comes time to pay disability benefits, why isn’t there a test for insurance company “malingerers”? Why should claimants be any less entitled to challenge benefit denials in court in a manner supposedly as objective as the one they face when making a claim? More importantly, why shouldn’t there be a real consequence when insurance companies ?
 

As the Holmstrom court pointed out, such a test might include the following questions:
 

* Did the insurer require the claimant to make application for Social Security benefits? If so, did the insurer give appropriate weight to the result of the SSDI application?
* Did the insurer’s doctors actually physically examine the claimant? If not, what appropriate weight should the opinion of these doctors be given in view of the type of disability claimed?
* Did the insurer appropriately evaluate treating doctors’ reports?
* Did the insurer giver appropriate weight to objective test results?
* Was the claimant’s actual medical history appropriately considered by the insurance company?
* Did the insurer appropriately take into account the cognitive impairments which are likely to result from medication required by the claimant’s condition?
* Did the insurer inappropriately ignore overwhelming evidence of disability by treating doctors in favor of the opinions of its doctors who never examined the patient?
* Did the insurer continue to move the goal posts so the claimant could never kick a field goal, i.e., provide the proof necessary to convince the insurer?
 

“Appropriate” is a key word, because it should not be enough for an insurer to say “we deny” without giving reasons appropriate to the level of the claimant’s proof, to support “we deny”. If Congress, in writing ERISA, thought plan administrators, especially insurance companies, would be paragons of virtue when it came to protecting employees, (29 U.S.C. 1001, et seq.) they were horribly mistaken.
 

To even the playing field in light of Firestone v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), reviewing courts should require insurers to provide rebuttals to claimant’s proofs which are on a level with the quality of those proofs.
 

Case law is full of instances where the desire not to pay benefits was so outrageous, that courts, usually restrained in their language, take the defendant insurance companies to task severely.
 

Yet, when it comes to the word “malingering”, courts and the public seem to reserve the term for claimants only.
 

If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck?
 

Insurance company disability plan administrators are many times “malingerers” of the worst kind when it comes to paying benefits.