BRYANT LEGAL GROUP PC

205 N Michigan Ave, Ste 3910

Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: (312) 561-3010

Fax: (312) 254-3140

Jennifer M. Danish

Managing Partner

Direct Dial: (312) 235-4886

Email: jdanish@bryantlg.com

Via Email e-ORI@dol.gov

January 18, 2016

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

 RIN No.: 1210-AB39

 Regulation: 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1

Dear Assistant Secretary Borzi:

I write to offer comments on the proposed regulations for amending the claims procedure regulations 

applicable to disability benefit plans. I am interested in the content of these regulations because I am an 

attorney whose practice is focused on the representation of claimants in ERISA-governed long term 

disability benefit disputes. I am well poised to comment, because I have worked in the field since 2003 

and practiced in this area of law since I became licensed in May 2009. My experience includes handling 

both administrative appeals and litigating these claims.

I. Comment on Notice for Applicable Statute of Limitations

The DOL has invited comment in the statute of limitations issues that have developed since the Supreme 

Court’s decision in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accid. Ins Co., 134 U.S. 604 (2013). I agree that this is a 

crucial area for regulation as the Heimeshoff decision has created confusion and much 

litigation. Prospective clients often come to me with claims that they can no longer pursue, because 

they were not provided the information necessary for them to understand what the statute of 

limitations was that applied to their claim. The DOL can assist by creating standards for what is a 

reasonable plan-based limitations provision in the same way that the DOL used its regulatory power to 

create timing deadlines for the claims process in prior versions of the regulations. Since Heimeshoff left 

open the possibility that an internal limitations period could run before the appeals process is complete 

even where exhaustion is mandatory, the DOL is in a good position to clarify that such an approach 

would violate full and fair review required by 29 U.S.C. §1133.
Additionally, because contractual limitations periods are plan terms, the claimant should receive notice 

about the limitations period from the plan just as is the case with other plan terms. As the DOL aptly 

points out in the preamble to these proposed regulations, plan administrators are in a better position to 

know the date of the expiration of the limitations period and should not be hiding the ball from 

claimants if the plan administrator is functioning as a true fiduciary. 

The additional of such a requirement is not inconsistent with case law. One court has interpreted the 

existing regulations to require notice of the expiration of a limitations period. Kienstra v. Carpenters' 

Health & Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis, No. 4:12CV53 HEA, 2014 WL 562557, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 13, 

2014), aff'd sub nom. Munro-Kienstra v. Carpenters' Health & Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis, 790 F.3d 

799 (8th Cir. 2015)(“[a] description of the plan's review procedures and the time limits applicable to 

such procedures, including a statement of the claimant's right to bring a civil action under section 502(a) 

of [ERISA] following an adverse benefit determination on review.” 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503–1(g)(iv)). This is 

a minority perspective. Here, the DOL should do more than interpret its own rules; it should re-write 

them to remove any ambiguity. 

I recommend an amendment to the regulations governing the manner and content of notification of 

benefit determinations on review. 29 C.F.R. §2560.503-1(j) [proposed regulation]: the amended 

language should require the claims administrator to notify the claimant of the date of the expiration of 

any plan based limitations period and should include a definition of what is a reasonable limitations 

period. Such an alteration takes care of the different courts’ views on when claims “accrue” in that it 

makes clear that no limitations period can start before the internal claim and appeals process is 

complete. It also makes clear that there will be at least a one-year period after the completion of the 

plan’s appeals process in which a claimant can file suit. The justification for this rule is that it would cut 

down on litigation devoted to the threshold issue of the running of the limitations period. In addition, it 

may well lead to a standardization of internal limitations periods that would be salutary for both 

claimants and plan administrators. 

Accordingly, I propose amending the proposed regulation by adding a section as follows and 

renumbering accordingly (added language is indicated by bolding and underlining):

29 C.F.R. 2560.503-1 (j)(6) [proposed regulation]

In the case of an adverse benefit decision with respect to disability benefits— (i) A 

discussion of the decision, including, to the extent that the plan did not follow or agree 

with the views presented by the claimant to the plan of health care professionals 

treating a claimant or the decisions presented by the claimant to the plan of other 

payers of benefits who granted a claimant’s similar claims (including disability benefit 

determinations by the Social Security Administration), the basis for disagreeing with 

their views or decisions; and (ii) Either the specific internal rules, guidelines, protocols, 

standards or other similar criteria of the plan relied upon in making the adverse 

determination or, alternatively, a statement that such rules, guidelines, protocols, 

standards or other similar criteria of the plan do not exist.

(7) In the case of an adverse benefit determination on review with respect to a claim 

for disability benefits, a statement of the date by which a claimant must bring suit 

under 502(a) of the Act. However, where the plan includes its own contractual 

limitations period, the contractual limitations period will not be reasonable unless: 
a. it begins to run no earlier than the date of the claimant’s receipt of the final 

benefit determination on review including any voluntary appeals that are taken;

b. it expires earlier than 1 year after the date of the claimant’s receipt of the 

final benefit determination on review including any voluntary appeals that are taken;

c. the administrator provides notice to the claimant of the date that the 

contractual limitations period will run; and

d. the contractual limitations period will not abridge any existing state 

limitations period that provides for a period longer than one year. 

(8) In the case of an adverse benefit determination on review with respect to a claim for 

disability benefits, the notification shall be provided in a culturally and linguistically 

appropriate manner (as described in paragraph (p) of this section).

II. Comment on Timing of Right to Respond to New Evidence or Rationales

Claimants are frequently ambushed with new rationales or evidence during the appeal process and left 

with no opportunity to respond to new arguments or evidence. Sandbagging has been a persistent 

problem in the ERISA appeals process and some courts have not appreciated how prejudicial this is to 

claimants. In Abram v. Cargill, 395 F.3d 882, 886 (8th Cir. 2005), the court articulated the problem as 

follows:

[w]ithout knowing what “inconsistencies” the Plan was attempting to resolve or having 

access to the report the Plan relied on, Abram could not meaningfully participate in the 

appeals process. . . This type of “gamesmanship” is inconsistent with full and fair review. 

Id. Given that it is often very hard to supplement the record in litigation, the proposed change offers 

some assurance that a claimant can contribute his or her relevant evidence to the record that the court 

will review. Where the claimant, as plaintiff, has the burden of proof on most issues, this only makes 

sense. In most litigation contexts, the party with the burden of proof is given the last word. Here, giving 

the last word to the claimant during the claims appeal process is, in effect, giving claimant the right of 

rebuttal in litigation.

There is, however, a countervailing concern that while this extra opportunity to submit proof to the plan 

exists, claimants will be extending their time without benefit payments. This is a problem that already 

exists and could be exacerbated. Plans have protested that giving the claimant the last word will make 

the internal appeals processes go on forever. This argument is out of touch with the reality of being an 

ERISA disability benefits claimant. These claimants, in my experience, would not continue the process 

ad nauseum while they are unable to pay their mortgages and feed their families.

The following suggestion places reasonable limits on both claimants and plan administrators and 

responds to the concern that claimants will have to wait too long for determinations on review. While 

claimants will want to make fast work of their responses because they are usually without income 

during this process, the type of evidence they often need to respond to new evidence or rationales by 

the plan may require hiring an expert such as another physician, psychologist, or vocational 
consultant. These professionals are not always readily available for quick turn-arounds and, depending 

on the new information such experts are responding to, they may need weeks to evaluate the new 

information. For this reason, claimants should have at least 60 days to respond to new evidence or 

rationales provided by the plan on appeal. Moreover, the period for the decision on review to be 

completed should be tolled during this 60-day period. When the claimant has responded, the plan 

administrator should be allowed whatever time was left under the existing regulations or 30 days, 

whichever is longer, to issue its determination on review. This rule should apply whether the new 

information is a new “rationale” or new “evidence.” 

Accordingly, I suggest the following amendment to the proposed regulation (new language indicated by 

bolding and underlining):

2560.503-1(h)(4)(ii) [proposed regulations] 

(ii) Provide that, before the plan can issue an adverse benefit determination on review 

on a disability benefit claim, the plan administrator shall provide the claimant, free of 

charge, with any new or additional evidence or rationale considered, relied upon, or 

generated by the plan (or at the direction of the plan) in connection with the claim; such 

evidence must be provided as soon as possible and sufficiently in advance of the date on 

which the notice of adverse benefit determination on review is required to be provided 

under paragraph (i) of this section to give the claimant a reasonable opportunity to 

respond prior to that date. Such new evidence or rationale must be provided to 

claimant before the decision on appeal is issued and the claimant must be afforded up 

to 60 days to respond. The time to render a determination on review will be 

suspended while the claimant responds to the new evidence or rationale. After 

receiving the claimant’s response to the new evidence or rationale or notification that 

the claimant will not be providing any response, the plan will have whatever time was 

left on the original appeal resolution time period or 30 days, whichever is greater, in 

which to issue its final decision.

III. Conclusion

Thank you for your consideration. If I can provide any additional information that would be helpful, 

please let me know.

Sincerely,

s/ Jennifer M. Danish

Jennifer M. Danish

--

Jennifer Danish

Managing Partner

Bryant Legal Group PC

205 N Michigan Ave, Ste 3910
Chicago, IL 60601

jdanish@bryantlg.com

(312) 561-3010 main line

(312) 235-4886 direct line

(312) 254-3140 fax

www.bryantlg.com

This communication may contain privileged and confidential information protected by the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 2510-2521. It is intended only for the use of the recipient 

named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or the employee or agent 

responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 

distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 

communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or email.