PUBLIC SUBMISSION

Received: October 18, 2017

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1k1-8zak-r6m0

Comments Due: October 27, 2017

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2015-0017

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits; Extension of Applicability 

Date

Comment On: EBSA-2015-0017-0291

Claims Procedure: Plans Providing Disability Benefits

Document: EBSA-2015-0017-DRAFT-0363

Comment on FR Doc # 2017-22082

Submitter Information

Name: Daniel Holliday

Address: 700 S. Thornton Avenue

Dalton, GA, 30722

Email: sholliday@mcmahanfirm.com

Phone: 7062176118

General Comment

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Room M-5655

U.S. Dept. of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: Claims Procedure Regulations for Plans Providing Disability Benefits 

Examination

RIN No.: 1210-AB39

Regulation: 29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1

Dear Deputy Assistant Secretary Hauser,
I write to offer comments on the Department's proposed delay of the final regulations 

for amending the claims procedure regulations applicable to disability benefit plans. I 

am interested in the content of these regulations because, as a partner at McMahan 

Law Firm, LLC, I primarily litigate ERISA disability, health and life insurance claims 

on behalf of individuals who have been wrongfully denied their benefits. I also have a 

Social Security disability practice and am certified as a specialist in Social Security 

Disability Law by the National Board of Social Security Disability Advocacy. I am a 

1996 graduate of Washington University School of Law and am licensed in Georgia, 

Tennessee and Illinois. I have been a leader in prominent organizations such as the 

American Association for Justice (AAJ), Tennessee Association of Justice (TAJ) and 

the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA). I am past-Chair of AAJ's Disability law 

Section, a former member of TAJ's Board of Governors, past-Chair of TBA's 

Disability Law Section and past-President of the Chattanooga Trial Lawyers 

Association (CTLA). AAJ, TAJ, TBA and CTLA are all associations of lawyers who 

advocate on behalf of disabled or injured individuals. Additionally, I have lectured 

regularly on disability issues to other attorneys in multiple jurisdictions.

The Department's proposed delay of the final regulations is startling and makes me 

wonder seriously about the transparency in the rule-making process. The Department 

finalized rules after an extensive notice and comment period which provided 60 days 

and generated numerous comments from a variety of sources. More specifically, 

insurance companies and plans, along with various entities that represent them, 

vigorously marshalled their arguments. A good number of those comments alleged 

there were high costs associated with implementation of the rules. However, those 

comments were speculative and not supported by relevant data. Significantly, quite a 

few industry comments requested additional time to modify their internal procedures 

in accordance with the new rules. The Department honored this by considerably 

delaying the effective date.

Now it has been discovered that other input is being relied upon - material that could 

and should have been contributed during the proper notice and comment period but 

was not. The ERISA participants and their representatives have no way to respond to 

this input because it has not been made available. This is extremely concerning. Why 

is this post-notice and comment information more important than what was obtained 

during the notice and comment period itself? Why did the Department hold meetings 

with industry representatives without the content of these meetings (and letters from 

certain congressmen) being substantively disclosed? Why is the industry referencing a 

"confidential" study predicting premium increases? Why has this study not been made 

available and why is there only a 15-day notice and comment period? As the 

Department well knows, this provides insufficient time to make a FOIA request to 
uncover what is influencing this process.

It gets worse. The industry study the Department is now proposing makes this process 

opaque. The data collected by the industry will be hidden from the public - members 

of whom are the very individuals whose rights are affected. How is this process fair? 

How is it trustworthy? It appears to be designed to allow the industry to massage facts 

in its favor. How can ERISA participants and their representatives effectively 

comment or provide their own "study," since they are not in possession of the data and 

do not have the time to do so if they were?

It is wrong to assume the industry's assessment that group disability benefits will 

increase by 5-8%. While premiums might rise in Vermont in response to a mental 

health parity statute it does not mean enhanced process-based rules would cause 

similar effects. However, even if premiums would be increased to some small degree 

it would be to avoid what the industry now provides: illusory coverage. Right now 

ERISA participants are paying something for nothing and paying something for 

something would be an improvement.

The process surrounding the proposed delay of the regulations is opaque. It damages 

the sense of trust and fairness that should attend the rule-making process. The 

effective date of the regulations should not be delayed.

Thank you for considering my comments,

D. Seth Holliday, Partner

McMahan Law Firm, LLC

700 S. Thornton Avenue

P.O. Box 1607

Dalton, Georgia 30722

(706) 217-6118