November 10, 2017

Public Comments (RIN​ ​1210-AB39​): “Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits”

Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits Examination

Office of Regulations and Interpretations,

Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20210

Dear Frances P. Steen and DOL Disability Benefits Examiners:

There is no doubt the December 19, 2016 Final Rule titled, “Claims Procedure for Plans Providing

Disability Benefits”, clearly reflects and is 100% buttressed by the intent of the 1974 ERISA and

2010 ACA conferees representing all 535 Members of Congress and the Office of the President.

The Conference Reports for these Acts, clearly reinforce every statement and determination made

by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in the Final Rule. The Final Rule, as it is

currently written, has been supported and perfected by EBSA and should not be changed, at all.

With respect to reopening the Final Rule for further comment, the Department of Labor states that

Members of Congress presented the Secretary of Labor with their concern regarding the Final

Rule. Although any member of the public and any Member of Congress is welcome to voice such

concern, under no circumstance should 28 Members of Congress who sent a letter to the

Secretary of Labor, be able to overturn the intent of the 535 Members of Congress, including the

conferees who represented all 535 Members of Congress, as documented in the 1974 ERISA and

2010 ACA Conference Reports. Certainly, the Executive Orders of a President should not be able

to trump, override, usurp and/or reverse the law and the intent of the conferees. The DOL must

follow the law and the intent of the law, over any Executive Order that may contradict the law.

With respect to the timing of the rule, the most disturbing decision made by DOL, was the arbitrary

choice to delay the implementation of the Final Rule for over a year, and now delaying the rule 90

more days. Based on the findings by the EBSA published in the December 19, 2016 Final Rule,

the Agency identified severe industry abuses in the disability claims arena. For the same reasons

used to justify the promulgation of the new Claims Procedures, the Agency should have

promulgated the new rule as an “Interim Final Rule”, effective January 1, 2017. Once it was known

to the EBSA, having clearly identified significant conflicts of interest issues, and many other abuses

arising from those conflicts of interest, the Agency should have immediately sought to implement
the rule, so that both the law and the intent of the ERISA and ACA conferees, could be properly

effectuated.

With respect to DOL seeking comment regarding the complete withdrawal of the Final Rule, that

would be unconscionable and would almost certainly result in a deleterious impact on future

disability claimants. Based on the Public Comments gathered, summarized and presented by the

EBSA, the Agency may have unintentionally created a “Playbook” to further tilt the claims review

procedures in favor of the claims adjudicators. Unintentionally, EBSA has provided guidance for

how a fiduciary may incentivize those involved in the claims review process to best deny claims.

Basically, the EBSA published a methodology that may be used as an instrument to more easily

deny disability claims. To withdraw the rule, at this stage, would be unjustifiable and disturbing.

Based on the ferocious resistance from the plan administrators, demanding the Final Rule be

opened up again for Public Comment, this reveals just how much of a premium the plan

administrators place on their secrecy. The plan administrators argue that complying with the new

Claims Procedures will be more expensive. However, there should be no additional cost for a plan

administrator to be transparent and truthful regarding a decision to deny a claim. In fact, being

truthful with regard to a claims denial, may actually reduce the number of lawsuits. One of the

main reasons lawsuits are filed today, is because people are not given access to the truth. If the

truth were provided, there may be even more reason not to file a lawsuit. Certainly, there are two

reasons for secrecy. First, the plan administrators are hopeful once a claim is denied, the claimant

will just go away. Next, the plan administrators do not want to reveal the strength of their rationale

used to deny a claim. The plan administrators believe that if the rationale to deny a claim is very

weak, more lawsuits may be filed against them. Certainly, it would not be the intent of the law or

the conferees, to encourage DOL to create rules for the purpose of denying legitimate disability

claims.

Of the many employee benefit laws established by the Employment Retirement Income Act

(ERISA) of 1974, perhaps no other employee benefit law reveals a more “special nature and

purpose” than the laws written for employee disability benefits arising from ERISA. In addition to

the original intent by Congress to bar the use of “speculation”, whether in the investment arena or

in the disability claims arena, as revealed by its choosing to use the “Prudent Man Standard”, just

as important as that standard, the conferees chose to make their feelings known, just how “special

nature and purpose” employee benefits are considered by Congress. Additionally, the conferees

stated how they “expect the courts [and federal agencies like DOL and EBSA] to interpret the

prudent man rule” in connection to employee benefit plans (No. 93-1280, 302 official page number

in 1974-3 Conference Report section).

Starting in 1974, in light of the “special nature and purpose” that Congress holds the wellbeing of

the nation’s employees, as evident by the utilization of the “prudent man” governing standard,

almost certainly this reveals Congress’s intent for claims adjudicators responsible for reviewing

objective medical evidence for the purpose of approving or denying disability claims. However,

even more importantly, is what the Conference Notes do not​ ​say with regard to the intent of the

conferees. Most notably, nowhere in the 1974 Conference Notes do the conferees hint or imply,

2
that the objective medical evidence provided by a claimant must approach a level to be near

immaculate, indisputable, or the like. This is the central issue when adjudicating disability claims.

Certainly, all medical evidence should be reviewed with reasonable care, skill, prudence and

diligence, but the use of speculation is prohibited by law. No doubt, the conferees intended for

claimants to provide objective medical evidence to those who manage disability insurance plans,

when filing a claim. However, just as importantly, the conferees also intended for those who

review the objective medical evidence in connection to a disability claim, to avoid the use of

speculation. In part, the conferees, chose to discourage the use of speculation with regard to the

administration of employee benefit plans, because of the “special nature and purpose” the

Congress holds the wellbeing of the nation’s employees. This is why the conferees chose the

“Prudent Man Standard”.

Next, to clearly understand the intent of Congress, upon reviewing the 1974 ERISA Conference

Report and the 2010 ACA Conference Report, it is also important to note that the conferees did

not​ ​state it was their intent to place all burden of proof entirely on the claimant. If it was the intent

of the conferees to place all burden of proof entirely on the claimant, the conferees would have

said so. Clearly, based on the law and intent of the conferees, all claims must be reviewed in this

legal light.

Certainly, it is the speculative nature and lack of independence and impartiality, that elevates the

anxiety of a claimant. Apparently, according to EBSA, there are plan administrators out there, who

are providing bonuses based on the number of denials made by a claims adjudicator, which is

abhorrent. No doubt, such concern and anxiety is completely justified, especially since the

claimant most likely does not have the financial resources to sustain an extended period of time

necessary to appeal a claim. Clearly, time works against the claimant. Those who read the

December 19, 2016 Final Rule, “Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits”, will see

a confirmation of these serious concerns, specifically reflected in the EBSA’s key findings, which is

remarkable:

Federal​ ​Register​ ​(12/19/2016)

ClaimsProcedureforPlansProvidingDisabilityBenefits(B)(1)

Independence​ ​and​ ​Impartiality—Avoiding​ ​Conflicts​ ​of​ ​Interest:

This final rule requires that decisions regarding hiring, compensation, termination,

promotion, or similar matters with respect to any individual must not be made based upon

the likelihood that the individual will support the denial of disability benefits. For example, a

plan cannot provide bonuses based on the number of denials made by a claims

adjudicator. Similarly, a plan cannot contract with a medical expert based on the expert's

reputation for outcomes in contested cases, rather than based on the expert's professional

qualifications. These added criteria for disability benefit claims address practices and

behavior which cannot be reconciled with the “full and fair review” guarantee in section 503

of ERISA, and with the basic fiduciary standards that must be followed.

3
Based on the Final Rule as written above, the EBSA’s implementing guidance properly moves the

requirement of “Independence and Impartiality” to a point more consistent with the intent of the

original conferees who wrote ERISA in 1974, specifically regarding (1) the “Prudent Man Standard”

and (2) a requirement for the fiduciary to review the substantive and objective medical evidence

without speculation. Furthermore, the December 19, 2016 Final Rule better reflects the intent of

Congress, as reconciled with the “full and fair review” guarantee in section 503 of ERISA.

Certainly, this Final Rule promulgated by EBSA, best represents the original intent of the 1974

ERISA Conference Report and sentiment of the conferees, as to how “special in nature and

purpose” employee benefits are held, including disability benefits. No person or court of law would

disagree.

After reviewing the Public Comments originally submitted regarding the new Claims Procedures,

many of which were submitted by the nation’s most experienced disability law practices that have

been instrumental in shaping the nation’s ERISA laws, through case law, that several firms were a

party to, a common theme was crystal clear, and repeated over and over again, regarding the prior

/ preceding Claims Procedures. Example after example was provided, revealing just how faulty the

Claims Procedures are today, and how they are unintentionally encouraging a total disregard for

“independence and impartiality” during the claims review process, and are being misused, and are

creating conflicts of interest among the many parties connected to the review process, including

fiduciaries, adjudicators, doctors, vocational experts, etc. Again, all extremely disturbing tales.

No doubt, the firms submitting Public Comments are among the most talented anywhere, with the

best of the best disability benefit law firms being located in Washington, D.C. Certainly, it is the

D.C. area firms that are the most familiar with the intricacies of federal law, how it works, and that

best understand the law is always about intent. In fact, these firms understand exactly why the

congressional Conference Notes are so important. With respect to ERISA, the Conference Notes

are critical to understanding the intent of the conferees. As the Department knows, the D.C. firms

in lieu of going to court, often times will go straight to Congress to have the laws changed, or just

as importantly, similar to the implementation of the new ERISA Disability Claims Procedures Final

Rule, promulgated on December 19, 2016, these firms will work with a Department to have the key

implementing guidance corrected. Certainly, many of the law firms who knew to submit Public

Comments, were a party to key ERISA decisions over the past 43 years. Although these law firms

may be located in Washington, D.C., they represent disability claimants outside of D.C.,

nationwide.

With respect to the DOL’s October 12, 2017 decision to delay the implementation of the rule for an

additional 90 days, that decision, no doubt, trampled upon a key component of ERISA and

trampled upon the explicit intent of the 1974 conferees, as revealed in the 1974 ERISA Conference

Report, specifically in relation to independence and impartiality, as discussed below in the Final

Rule:

Federal​ ​Register​ ​(12/19/2016)

ClaimsProcedureforPlansProvidingDisabilityBenefits(B)(1)

IndependenceandImpartiality:

4
Consistent with the ACA Claims and Appeals Final Rule governing group health plans,

paragraph (b)(7) of this final rule explicitly provides that plans providing disability benefits

“must ensure that all claims and appeals for disability benefits are adjudicated in a manner

designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of the persons involved in making the

decision.”

Obviously, the key purpose of the Final Rule was to, “ensure the independence and impartiality of

the persons involved in making the [claims approval or denial] decision.” Clearly, this EBSA

guidance is 100% aligned with the 1974 ERISA conferees stating how they “expect the courts [and

federal agencies like the Department of Labor and the Employee Benefits Security Administration]

to interpret the prudent man rule” in connection to the nation’s employee benefit plans. Certainly, a

“prudent man” [fiduciary] must ensure the “independence and impartiality” of those involved in

reviewing disability claims. Obviously, according to EBSA’s own findings, this has not been the

case over the past 10 years, which is why the new Final Rule was promulgated and is needed.

Certainly, it is important to recognize, the EBSA must have believed industry-wide abuse was so

prevalent, the Agency determined that a new “Claims Procedure” was warranted, even without any

recent legislative changes to ERISA. In fact, the EBSA stated in the Federal Register, that “The

Department's determination to revise the claims procedures was additionally affected by the

aggressive posture insurers and plans can take to disability claims coupled with the judicially

recognized conflicts of interest insurers and plans often have in deciding benefit claims”.

Furthermore, based on input from the ERISA Advisory Council, coupled with what the Agency

discovered through the public comments it received, EBSA learned the prior claims procedures,

even though intended to protect participants, were not working as intended. This key EBSA

finding, is revealed within the following claim made by the EBSA, found in the Final Rule:

The Council was made aware of recurring issues and administrative practices that

participants and beneficiaries face when appealing a claim that may be inconsistent with

the existing regulations” and administrative law. In fact, the Department believes that this

action was necessary to ensure that disability claimants receive a full and fair review of

their claims, as required by ERISA section 503, under the more stringent procedural

protections that Congress established for group health care claimants under the ACA and

the Department's implementing regulation at 29 CFR 2590.715-2719 (“ACA Claims and

Appeals Final Rule”). This final rule will promote fairness and accuracy in the claims review

process and protect participants and beneficiaries in ERISA-covered disability plans by

ensuring they receive benefits that otherwise might have been denied by plan

administrators in the absence of the fuller protections provided by this final regulation. The

final rule also will help alleviate the financial and emotional hardship suffered by many

individuals when they are unable to work after becoming disabled and their claims are

denied.

5
It must be noted, that in light of the rampant abuses identified by EBSA, it is curious EBSA chose

to implement the new rule as a Final Rule, rather than an “Interim Final Rule”, choosing to delay

the implementation of the rule until January 1, 2018. Certainly, in reviewing the EBSA’s own

rationale and logic for promulgating the new Claims Procedures, one could argue the new rule

should have been promulgated as an “Interim Final Rule”, not a Final Rule, which would have

made the rule effective immediately upon publication. It is indisputable that the same “good cause”

found by the EBSA to promulgate the rule change, could have also been used to justify the

promulgation of an “Interim Final Rule”, as well. The logic is so intertwined, there is no way it could

be uncoupled.

With respect to further delay of the Final Rule to April 1, 2018, this decision, no doubt, tramples

upon the intent of the 1974 ERISA and 2010 ACA conferees. Based on the law and the intent of

the conferees, the proper solution would be to immediately promulgate an “Interim Final Rule”. To

be fair to all respective parties, the following “Interim Final Rule” should be promulgated without

delay:

INTERIM​ ​FINAL​ ​RULE​ ​(Proposed):

The​ ​amendments​ ​made​ ​on​ ​December​ ​19,​ ​2016,​ ​shall​ ​become​ ​applicable​ ​to

claims​ ​for​ ​disability​ ​benefits​ ​that​ ​are​ ​filed​ ​after​ ​April​ ​1,​ ​2018,​ ​or​ ​any​ ​disability

claim​ ​denied​ ​from​ ​January​ ​1,​ ​2017​ ​thru​ ​December​ ​31,​ ​2018.

This proposal represents the most reasonable and fair rule for all parties, supported by law

and the intent of the conferees, for the transition between Claims Procedures. Having the

date range through December 31, 2018 for denied claims only, which includes claims filed

prior to April 1, 2018, eliminates any possible deleterious impact on those claimants

impacted by any conflict of interest or harmful action performed to deny a claim. If the

December 31, 2018 date were to be set to April 1, 2018 for those who filed a claim

between January 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018, almost certainly, there would be adjudicators

who would rush to deny as many claims as possible prior to April 1, 2018. The date range

must be from January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2018 for all denied claims.

NOTE:Not one single disability claim that was properly denied during this period, would

be reversed, as a result of the Interim Final Rule being retroactive back to January 1, 2017

and forward thru December 31, 2018. Only claims improperly denied would be reversed.

Here​ ​is​ ​the​ ​key​ ​legal​ ​question:​ How can the intent of ERISA, as reflected by the 1974 ERISA

and 2010 ACA conferees not be extended to those who should have been protected by ERISA all

along, once the EBSA was made aware of rampant industry wide abuses? Unquestionably, to

deprive someone who had their claim denied starting January 1, 2017, would trample upon the

intent of the conferees and the law. How can the EBSA, in good conscience, not extend the “fuller

protections provided by the final regulation” to all those who had their claim denied between

January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Certainly, there can be no rational reason based in law,

to the contrary.

6
Based on the 1974 ERISA conferees who noted just how “special nature and purpose” employee

disability benefits are to the Congress, certainly the Department of Labor must be extraordinarily

sensitive in this regard, ensuring the rule of law and its full intent be observed. Certainly, the

“Interim Final Rule (Proposed)”, herein, to DOL above, best reflects (1) the intent of the conferees

implementing the ERISA law required by section 503, consistent with the 1974 Conference Report,

(2) the intent of the Congress under the more stringent procedural protections that Congress

established for group health care claimants under the ACA and (3) the EBSA’s December 19, 2016

Final Rule, all consistent with the intent of ERISA law, as reflected by the 1974 Conference Notes.

In addition to the above, the EBSA pointed to existing federal law, “adopting certain procedural

protections and safeguards for disability benefit claims that are currently applicable to claims for

group health benefits pursuant to the Affordable Care Act”, to serve as guidance for this new rule.

Although the EBSA has referenced Executive Orders for the timing of the Final Rule, giving plan

administrators a reasonable amount of time to implement the new changes, it is important to note

that the original intent of the 1974 ERISA and the 2010 ACA conferees, as reflected in the

Conference Reports, was trampled upon by this delay, based on the decision to EXCLUDE those

who may have had a disability claim denied between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. As

DOL knows, often as a result of a change in law, the conferees will express their expectations

regarding the timelines of such changes, by requesting an Agency implement changes

“expeditiously and without delay” and many times, retroactively. The EBSA’s decision to update

the Claims Procedures without such guidance, and to establish January 1, 2018, as the date of

promulgation, was derived, in part, as a result of following statement reflected in the Final Rule:

The Department's experience since 2000 with the Section 503 Regulation and related

changes in the governing law for group health benefits led the Department to conclude that

it was appropriate to re-examine the rules governing disability benefit claims.” The

Department’s experience acknowledges the existence of, “Insurers and plans looking to

contain disability benefit costs [that] may be motivated to aggressively dispute disability

claims. Concerns exist regarding conflicts of interest impairing the objectivity and fairness

of the process for deciding claims for group health benefits. Those concerns resulted in the

Affordable Care Act recognizing the need to enhance the Section 503 Regulation with

added procedural protections and consumer safeguards for claims for group health

benefits.

Certainly, by implementing the proposed “Interim Final Rule” offered herein, to protect all claims

denied between January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2018, by extending the benefits of the new

Claims Procedures, would not only ensure legal compliance with ERISA, it would ensure that full

and fair consideration is extended to all disability claims, by allowing ready access to the relevant

evidence and standards, while ensuring the impartiality of the persons involved in each claim that

was denied, and would provide all denied claimant’s notice and a fair opportunity to respond to the

evidence, rationales, and guidelines for each important decision made by the adjudicator, to make

certain the basis for such decisions are fully and fairly communicated to those who have a claim

denied, during this limited period of time. This would ensure all recently denied claims will be in full

compliance with ERISA section 503. Clearly, the new Claims Procedures reflect the Department’s

7
best understanding for how to best comply with ERISA section 503, therefore, any Final Rule must

apply to all recently denied claims between January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2018. Since the

new Claims Procedures best reflect the requirements of ERISA law, case law, and the intent of the

conferees, all recently denied claims must be granted all the privileges of the new rule.

It is important to note, that the intent of the conferees writing both ERISA and ACA, would not have

supported such an arbitrary decision made by DOL, to allow known industry wide abuses to

continue, once the Department was made fully aware of such abuses. Furthermore, the conferees

would not have supported any DOL implementing guidance that would knowingly harm those who

have been denied their disability benefits for claims denied between January 1, 2017 and

December 31, 2018, which is the relevant period of transition between the two Claims Procedures.

DOL must promulgate the following “Interim Final Rule”, to ensure that justice under the law is

extended to all:

INTERIM​ ​FINAL​ ​RULE:

The​ ​amendments​ ​made​ ​on​ ​December​ ​19,​ ​2016,​ ​shall​ ​become​ ​applicable​ ​to

claims​ ​for​ ​disability​ ​benefits​ ​that​ ​are​ ​filed​ ​after​ ​April​ ​1,​ ​2018,​ ​or​ ​any​ ​disability

claim​ ​denied​ ​from​ ​January​ ​1,​ ​2017​ ​thru​ ​December​ ​31,​ ​2018.

Almost certainly, promulgating a Final Rule on December 19, 2016 and making that rule effective

over a year later, resulted in a deleterious impact on those filing disability claims during 2017.

These claimants were not only denied the “fuller protections of the final regulation”, the plan

administrators were unintentionally motivated to deny as many claims as possible during 2017,

knowing that denying claims starting in 2018, may be more difficult. The proper determination,

after now having reopened the Final Rule for comment and delaying a perfected Final Rule for an

additional 90 days, must be to make the rule retroactive back to January 1, 2017, for any claim

denied, all the way thru December 31, 2018. Almost certainly, once the agency was made aware

of the industry wide abuse, an “Interim Final Rule” should have been promulgated on January 1,

2017. Making the rule retroactive resolves any and all legal implications, connected to the prior

decision.

Almost certainly, the 1974 ERISA and 2010 ACA conferees, representing all 535 Members of

Congress, would have expected those people who may have had their claims improperly denied

between January 1, 2017 thru December 31, 2018, to have an opportunity for their claims to be

reopened and re-reviewed, using a more proper interpretation of the “intent” of the law, rather than

having these claims denied forever, as a result of a faulty set of Claims Procedures, acknowledged

publicly in the Final Rule, by the Department of Labor, the Employment Security Benefits

Administration and the ERISA Advisory Council, as understood to be severely flawed. Not only did

the EBSA publicly determine that the Claims Procedures were severely flawed, the courts have

also acknowledged the same, as documented by the EBSA Final Rule.

8
In summary, there are four critical issues identified herein, that I am hopeful DOL will acknowledge: 

First, the Department must not withdraw its Final Rule, with regard to the Claims Procedures. 

That would be absurd and trample upon ERISA law and ERISA case law, as well as the intent of 

the conferees as revealed in the 1974 ERISA and 2010 ACA Conference Reports. The DOL must 

follow the law and the intent of the law, over any Executive Order that may conflict with the law. 

Second, since DOL has discovered rampant industry-wide abuse in the disability claims arena, to 

pretend such abuse has not been documented and published in the Final Rule, would be improper. 

Third, nowhere in the 1974 ERISA Conference Notes do the conferees ever hint or imply, that the 

objective medical evidence provided by a claimant must approach a level to be considered near 

immaculate, indisputable or the like. DOL should acknowledge this fact in the Claims Procedures. 

Fourth, rather than rewarding those plan administrators that may have trampled the legal rights of 

people who may have had their claims improperly denied between January 1, 2017 through 

December 31, 2018, these claimants must be given proper consideration to receive the “fuller 

protections provided by the final regulation” to have their claims properly re-reviewed. The DOL 

obviously had no problem finding the legal basis to reopen and delay this Final Rule, therefore, 

should have no problem accepting the legal basis offered herein, to reopen these denied claims. 

In the past, having had the privilege of working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

Senate Defense Appropriations Committee and the Defense Acquisition Regulatory Council, to 

pass important DoD procurement legislation, followed by the DFARS implementing guidance, I was 

given the rare opportunity to go through the end-to-end process, from enacting legislation through 

the promulgation of a Final Rule. Certainly, the most important lesson I learned, was that “intent” 

of the conferees was critical. Obviously, President Trump wants to cut regulations, but regulations 

cannot be cut when the purpose of the regulations are to effectuate the intent of the law and the 

conferees. Based on how DOL is interpreting the EO referenced in the Final Notice, to reduce 

regulations, all future legislation passed by Congress would need to include the implementing 

guidance detailed in the Conference Report (i.e. Disability Claims Procedures, DFARS rules, etc.), 

which would not be practical or logical. Given the choice between promulgating Final Rules that 

reflect the guidance of an EO vs. the law and the intent of the conferees, the law must prevail. As 

the DOL struggles through this reality, today’s Claims Review procedures continue to cause harm. 

No doubt, the Department is now, “Up to its eyeballs in alligators”, with the promulgation of a Final 

Rule a year ago, and then delaying the implementation of the Final Rule an additional 90 days, all 

driven by an Executive Order that appears to directly conflict with ERISA law, the ACA law, and the 

intent of the conferees representing the 535 Members of Congress, as reflected in the 1974 ERISA 

and 2010 ACA Conference Reports. The most logical, rational and sensible solution, would be for 

DOL to make the proposed “Interim Final Rule”, as presented herein, effective January 1, 2018. 

Certainly, the Plan Administrators have been prepared for a January 1, 2018 start date for this 

Final Rule. As part of the “Interim Final Rule”, the Department could extend the Public Comment 

period thru April 1, 2018, and then make a determination whether or not to make further changes 

9 
to the “Interim Final Rule”. Almost certainly, the courts would support this rationale and logic, as 

well as the rationale and logic to make the rule retroactive back to January 1, 2017, for those who 

may have had their disability claims improperly denied, even though the DOL knew of rampant 

industry abuse. 

I very much look forward to reading the Department’s response to the arguments, logic and 

rationale contained, herein. The implications will be applicable to the entire rules making process, 

for every federal agency and/or department, as to whether or not an Act of law or an EO is 

superior. 

There are many people out there depending on the DOL to make this right, including me. The 

Disability Claims Review process must be transparent and free of conflicts of interest, no doubt. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Perkins, LXXIV 

10