There are six dangerous words that you don’t want to see in your long-term disability policy. Read this blog to learn more and contact a Virginia disability lawyer if you are considering applying for benefits.
Read this blog to learn the common myths associated with Virginia disability benefits. Be sure to order your copy of Virginia disability insurance lawyer Ben Glass’s book, Robbery Without a Gun.
Are insurance companies really trying to be helpful when assisting claimants in applying for government benefits or is there something else going on? Read this blog to learn more.
The insurance company has the upper hand in a lawsuit involving a denied disability claim. Read this article to find out why and contact Virginia disability insurance lawyer Ben Glass.
Wondering which health conditions are commonly denied when it comes to disability claims? If so, you need to read this article to find out. Be sure to order your copy of Virginia disability lawyer Ben Glass’s book, Robbery Without a Gun: Why Your Employer's Long-Term Disability Plan May be a Scam.
Employers have been cutting back on the amount of coverage offered to disabled workers. On top of that issue, insurers have been pickier about the claims they will pay. If you have been denied disability benefits in Virginia, you can fight back.
Judge William Acker refused a Joint Motion to Vacate his ruling in Blankenship v. MetLife an ERISA case he recently presided over. Acker's final order was quite critical of ERISA and its interpretation by many judges.
A Federal Judge discusses the perversion of ERISA from it's original intent. From protecting the retirement incomes of Americans everywhere to providing a shield for insurance company's shady activities. Read on for the problems with, and shortcomings of, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
A recent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch highlights the burgeoning world of technology and the ways in which the law is trying to catch up. The article focuses on a recent Virginia Worker's Compensation Commission case in which Facebook was subpoenaed to provide the personal information of a worker's comp claimant.
Facebook refused to comply with the subpoena (at a cost of $200/day) on the grounds that it would invalidate the privacy agreement on the site, that they were protected by federal statutes prohibiting information release, and on the principal that the site is "built on trust" and to give in to the subpoena would undermine the site's basis.
The Deputy Commissioner, Randolph Tabb, agreed with Facebook on the grounds that the Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act protected the member's of the site and that their information was not able to be attained through subpoena.
With technology and social media becoming ever present in our lives it's interesting to see how the courts adjust to the changes and advances. In this case the claimant went ahead and allowed access to her info anyway, but anyone who doesn't want to is now protected. Here's a link to the article on Facebook defeating the subpoena .
Your insurance company may ask you to do a variety of things from taking tests to giving interviews and possibly even seeing one of their doctors. Should you go along with all of this? See the answer to this disability question and then check out my FAQ section for more answers to possible questions you might have.
If your question isn't there you might be able to find the answer in my disability book titled Robbery Without A Gun.
First UNUM finally lost a disability insurance claim case that has been going on for the last 15 years. John McCauley filed for disability all the way back in 1994 and has finally been awarded the ruling he was looking for. After UNUM first denied his claim in the mid-90s McCauley was forced to return to work for financial reasons but was only able to fight through his debilitating pain for 8 months. UNUM claimed this period meant that McCauley could not recover benefits because he had worked more than 6 months. The court was able to determine that UNUM's denial forced the client into work and that UNUM was using that work to deny benefits was an "unconscionable" practice and that the 6 month clause was to be ignored because of it.
Courts can ignore portions of contracts that they see as "unconscionable" or "so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be unenforceable according to its liberal terms." The court did this and remanded the case to determine just how much UNUM owes in back benefits to McCauley.
Well the short of it is that it's very bad for the claim, for the long of it go to my disability FAQ section to figure out how you might be able to remedy the situation.
You can also check out my disability insurance book titled Robbery Without A Gun: Why Your Employer's Long-Term Disability Plan May Be A Scam
If the termination letter says you've missed a deadline your case is not necessarily lost. Read my in-depth answer to this disability question to find out how it can be saved and to find out what I might be able to do for you if your benefit is terminated.
The short answer is generally no. But check out the in-depth answer regarding ERISA and government agencies, and check out my other answers to disability FAQs on my FAQ page.
Here's a great case out of Tennessee in which the insurance doctor made a decision to deny with hardly any information. That's dangerous because what if they then miss information that makes it an obviously valid claim? Well then they get sued and taken to court and that's exactly what happened.
It was a psychiatric disability case and those are tricky and require a bit more attention from the disability insurer. Dr. Grimes, the reviewing psychiatrist made the decision to deny based on the opinion that the claimant was able to perform her job. She made that decision without any knowledge of the claimant's job, without interviewing the claimant, and without consulting with all of the claimant's treating mental health professionals.
That might fly in physical disability cases because often the records can speak for themselves, but when they're dealing with psychiatric disability it's important to have a physician actually meet with the claimant to determine the extent of the disability. Unfortunately that's not how the insurance companies want to do it, so they don't. Trying to save a little time and money and they're asking for litigation. Well, again, they got it. Next time they should take the time to actually review the claim and save everyone the hassle of court by accepting the initial claim.
Remember to send in your own question if you have one. I'll do my best to get to it in a timely manner! In the meantime you can order my disability insurance book, titled Robbery Without A Gun: Why Your Employer's Long Term Disability Plan May Be A Scam, for more information that might answer your questions!
Continuing in my attempts to provide up-to-date responses to all of your questions here are few new answers to your questions. You can also find them in the FAQ section of the site. Enjoy and remember to submit your questions!
Here's another case in which we see insurance companies behaving badly. Patricia Galvin, a Tax Attorney from Northern California was rear ended by a speeder and suffered back injuries that would lead to chronic debilitating back pain. Every doctor seen by Ms. Galvin concluded that she could not work due to the pain.
The only doctor to say she could work was UNUM's own Dr. Stephen Jacobson who claimed that Ms. Galvin's pain was subjective and that there was no objective medical evidence that the pain was at the level she described. UNUM also claimed that the cause of Galvin's inability to work was not her injuries from the accident but from depression exacerbated by a hostile working environment (which was created by her inability to function after her injuries).
So UNUM is claiming that her inability to work is caused by her hostile working environment. Ignoring the fact that the hostile working environment was created by her attempts to remain working despite her disability. Another catch-22 crafted by the insurance company to deny a legitimate claim. This time the court agreed with the plaintiff but California is a generous state when it comes to dealing with insurance companies and it certainly isn't the case that a similar result could be expected in similar circumstances elsewhere.
I've got a potential client who may have a claim against one of the major long term disability insurance companies for lifetime benefits. (Yes, these policies exist--written long ago...collected premiums all these years...they just hate it when a claim is made)
Anyway, the claims rep tells him "you know, if you make this claim we are going to bug you and pester you for the rest of your life. We'll not only require every form known to man but you'll never know when the truck down the street is hiding our video surveillance."
The potential client, to his great credit, didn't take the bait and argue with the guy.
He just said: that's exactly what Ben Glass told me you would say!"