ERISA Long-Term Disability Wins Against CIGNA – Two of Them

Long-Term Disability Insurance Claims

Request your free consultation

"*" indicates required fields

Case Type*
This will help you get to the right specialist. Please tell us the best way to contact you.
Hidden
Hidden
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By providing your number, you agree to receive text messages from BenGlassLaw. Message and data rates may apply. Message frequency varies.

ERISA Disability Claims: A Case Study on Long-Term Denial and Appeal

Navigating the complex landscape of ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) long-term disability claims can be daunting. This report from the BenGlassLaw long-term disability team examines a case of a claimant who successfully appealed a denial of benefits not once, but twice, highlighting the intricacies involved in securing disability benefits under ERISA regulations.

Understanding “Own Occupation” vs. “Any Occupation”

In ERISA disability policies, the terms “own occupation” and “any occupation” play a crucial role in determining eligibility for benefits. During the initial 24 months of a disability claim, benefits are typically granted if the claimant is unable to perform their specific job role, known as their “own occupation.” After this period, the criteria become stricter, and the claimant must demonstrate an inability to work in “any occupation” for which they are reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Case Background: The Challenges of a Senior Systems Analyst

The claimant in this case was a senior systems analyst whose career was abruptly halted by multiple debilitating conditions. Initially, she was denied benefits for her own occupation, a decision that was later reversed on appeal. The claimant continued to receive benefits until the transition to the “any occupation” phase, at which point the insurer, CIGNA, terminated the benefits. CIGNA contended that although the claimant could no longer work as a systems engineer, she could potentially work as a project director.

Medical Conditions Impacting the Claimant

The claimant’s ability to work was severely impacted by several medical conditions:

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis is an autoimmune disorder characterized by chronic inflammation of the joints. This condition can cause painful swelling and can eventually result in joint deformity and bone erosion. Its systemic nature means it can also affect other organs and lead to widespread symptoms.

Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis, often referred to as degenerative joint disease, involves the wear-and-tear of joint cartilage. It typically affects the hands, knees, hips, and spine, causing pain and stiffness. Unlike rheumatoid arthritis, it does not involve systemic inflammation.

Dequervain’s Syndrome

Dequervain’s Syndrome is a painful condition affecting the tendons on the thumb side of the wrist. It results in difficulties gripping and can be excruciating, often exacerbated by repetitive motion. It is sometimes compared to carpal tunnel syndrome due to its impact on hand function and similar symptoms.

The Appeals Process: Overcoming Denials

In her second appeal, the claimant focused on several key arguments:

Cherry-picking of Information: It was argued that CIGNA selected data from the independent medical examination that supported its decision while ignoring the overall conclusions that favored the claimant’s inability to work.

Job Role Comparison: The claimant contested CIGNA’s assertion that the roles of a systems engineer and a project director were significantly different, thereby challenging the insurer’s rationale for denying benefits.

Scientific Validity: Criticism was directed at the vocational rehabilitation review and transferable skills analysis for lacking scientific rigor.

Disregard for Pain Levels: The claimant’s consistently high pain levels, which were substantiated by medical documentation, were reportedly overlooked by the insurer.

Conclusion: Victory and Vindication

The persistence in challenging the insurer’s decisions paid off, as CIGNA ultimately reinstated the benefits, with the claimant’s projected lifetime value of the monthly benefits estimated at $204,100. This case underscores the importance of detailed medical documentation, a robust understanding of ERISA law, and the persistence necessary to contest denials in a system that can be inherently challenging for claimants.

Other Long-Term Disability Information: