-1- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Scott E. Davis 

State Bar No. 016160 

SCOTT E. DAVIS, P.C. 

8360 E. Raintree Drive, Suite 140 

Scottsdale, AZ 85260 

Telephone: (602) 482-4300 

Facsimile: (602) 569-9720 

email: davis@scottdavispc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Woolsey 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Woolsey, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Aetna Life Insurance Company; UBS Financial 

Services, Inc. (Wealth Management); UBS 

Financial Services, Inc. (Wealth Management) 

Disability Plan,

 Defendants. 

Case No. 

COMPLAINT 

 

 Now comes the Plaintiff Michael Woolsey (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by 

and through his attorney, Scott E. Davis, and complaining against the Defendants, he states: 

Jurisdiction 

 1. Jurisdiction of the court is based upon the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); and in particular, 29 U.S.C. §§1132(e)(1) and 1132(f). 

Those provisions give the district courts jurisdiction to hear civil actions brought to recover 

employee benefits. In addition, this action may be brought before this Court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1331, which gives the Court jurisdiction over actions that arise under the laws of 

the United States. 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 16
-2- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Parties 

 2. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a resident of Maricopa 

County, Arizona. 

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant UBS Financial Services, Inc. 

(hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) sponsored, administered and purchased a group 

long-term disability insurance policy (hereinafter referred to as the "Policy") which was 

fully insured by Aetna Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “Aetna”). The 

specific group disability policy is known as Group Policy No.: GP-062399. The 

Company’s purpose in purchasing the Policy was to provide disability insurance for its 

employees. 

4. Upon information and belief, the Policy may have been included in and part 

of an employee benefit plan, specifically named the UBS Financial Services, Inc. (Wealth 

Management) Disability Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Plan”) which may have been 

created to provide the Company’s employees with welfare benefits. 

5. At all times relevant hereto, the Plan constituted an “employee welfare 

benefit plan” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §1002(1). 

6. Upon information and belief, Aetna functioned as the claim administrator of 

the Plan and Policy. However, pursuant to the relevant ERISA regulation, the Company 

and/or the Plan may not have made a proper delegation or properly vested fiduciary 

authority or power for claim administration in Aetna. 

7. Aetna operated under a financial conflict of interest in fully insuring and 

administering Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim due to the fact that it operated in dual 

roles as the decision maker with regard to whether Plaintiff was disabled, as well as the 

payor of benefits. 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 2 of 16
-3- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

8. Aetna’s conflict of interest existed and manifested in that if it found Plaintiff 

was disabled, it was then financially liable for the payment of his long-term disability 

benefits. 

9. The Company, Aetna and the Plan conduct business within Maricopa County 

and all events giving rise to this Complaint occurred within Arizona. 

Venue 

10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(e)(2) and 28 

U.S.C. §1391. 

Nature of the Complaint 

11. Incident to his employment, Plaintiff was a covered employee pursuant to 

the Plan and the relevant Policy and a “participant” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §1002(7). 

12. Plaintiff seeks disability income benefits from the Plan and the relevant 

Policy pursuant to §502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B), as well as any other 

non-disability employee benefits he may be entitled to from the Plan, any other Company 

Plan and/or the Company as a result of being found disabled in this action. 

13. After working for the Company as a loyal employee in the occupation of a 

Financial Advisor, Plaintiff became disabled from working in that occupation, and also in 

any occupation, on or about January 6, 2016. Plaintiff has remained continuously totally 

disabled since that date due to his serious medical conditions. 

14. Plaintiff was unrepresented throughout the entirety of his short and long-term 

disability claims with Aetna. 

15. Following the onset of his disability, Plaintiff filed a claim for short-term 

disability benefits which was administered and reviewed by, and approved by Aetna. 

16. The relevant short-term disability Plan was self-insured by the Company, 

meaning that it paid all short-term disability benefits if Plaintiff was found disabled by 

Aetna. When it had no financial liability for the decision it made, Aetna found Plaintiff met 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 3 of 16
-4- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

the definition of disability set forth in the short-term disability Plan and that he was disabled 

throughout the entire short-term disability timeframe (six months). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 

short-term disability benefits have all been paid and have all been exhausted. 

17. Plaintiff asserts the fact that Aetna’s approval of his short-term disability 

claim, using a similar definition of disability as is contained in his long-term disability 

Policy, when it was not financially liable to make payments to Plaintiff as a result of its 

approval, is relevant evidence for this Court to consider with regard to the unreasonableness 

of Aetna’s denial of his long-term disability claim, and also evidence that its denial of his 

long-term disability claim was influenced by Aetna’s financial conflict of interest in that 

claim and its desire to save money, because Aetna was fully liable for all of Plaintiff’s longterm disability benefits. 

18. When Aetna denied Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim, it saved hundreds 

of thousands of dollars in unpaid long-term disability benefits to Plaintiff. 

19. Following the exhaustion of his short-term disability claim/benefits, Plaintiff 

then filed his claim for long-term disability benefits under the relevant Policy, which was 

also administered by Aetna. Aetna made every decision in Plaintiff’s long-term disability 

claim, which was to deny it. 

20. Upon information and belief, the relevant Aetna Policy’s definition of 

disability governing Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim is as follows: 

 Test of Disability 

 You meet the test of disability on any day that: 

 

 You cannot perform the material duties of your own occupation solely 

because of an illness, injury or disabling pregnancy-related condition; 

and 

 Your earnings are 80% or less of your adjusted pre-disability 

earnings. 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 4 of 16
-5- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

21. In support of his claim for long-term disability benefits, Plaintiff submitted to 

Aetna medical and other evidence which supported his allegation that he met the definition 

of disability as defined in the relevant Policy. 

22. Plaintiff submitted to Aetna one of its own medical questionnaires dated June 

14, 2016, which was completed by Plaintiff’s treating medical professional, who confirmed 

Plaintiff’s medical conditions “...do not allow patient to appropriately function in a position 

where high level of...function is needed.” 

23. Plaintiff also submitted to Aetna a February 26, 2016 medical record from the 

same treating medical professional who stated, “At this time a strong recommendation 

continues that [Plaintiff] not work and he is unable to work at this time...” 

24. Further supporting his claim, Plaintiff submitted to Aetna a June 7, 2016 

medical record from the same treating medical professional who confirmed, “[Plaintiff] is 

pursuing long term disability which is reasonable given for [sic] his current position and 

type of work he can no longer appropriately function...at the level needed to continue in his 

profession.” 

25. In a letter dated July 1, 2016, Aetna informed Plaintiff it was denying his 

claim for long-term disability benefits without any medical documentation to support its 

allegation that Plaintiff could return to work in his Own Occupation, or any other 

occupation, and earn at least 80% of his pre-disability earnings. 

26. Aetna denied Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim without any 

documentation that Plaintiff’s medical condition had improved in any meaningful way 

which would have allowed him to return to his occupation, since Aetna had approved his 

short-term disability claim. 

27. A July 1, 2016 “Show All Notes Report” (Aetna’s internal claim notes) 

confirms Aetna denied Plaintiff’s claim in part because, “...objective information has not 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 5 of 16
-6- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

been supplied to show EE [employee] is unable to perform his, or any, occ [occupational] 

duties” (emphasis added). 

28. Aetna’s July 1, 2016 “Show All Notes Report” is evidence that Aetna 

unlawfully violated ERISA and Ninth Circuit case law by importing a new requirement into 

the Policy that Plaintiff prove his claim and that he met the definition of disability with 

“objective” medical evidence, when there is no such requirement in the Policy. 

29. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1133, Plaintiff timely appealed Aetna’s July 1, 2016 

denial of his claim and submitted additional medical and other evidence supporting his 

appeal and his allegation that he is disabled and meets the definition of disability in the 

Policy. 

30. In support of his claim for disability benefits, Plaintiff submitted to Aetna one 

of its own medical questionnaires dated October 21, 2016, which was completed by 

Plaintiff’s treating medical professional who confirmed, “...[Plaintiff] is unable to do any 

...functions related to work.” 

31. Plaintiff also submitted to Aetna an October 19, 2016 medical record from his 

board certified treating physician/specialist who opined, “...[Plaintiff] continued to clearly 

remain disabled.” 

32. Further supporting his claim, Plaintiff submitted to Aetna a November 8, 

2016 medical record from his treating medical professional who confirmed he was “Unable 

to work,” and a November 22, 2016 medical record from the same medical professional 

who reiterated, “[Plaintiff] is disabled and totally unable to work,” due to his medical 

conditions. 

33. As part of its review of Plaintiff’s claim for long-term disability benefits, 

Aetna obtained two (2) medical records only “paper reviews” from two medical 

professionals of its choosing, Dr. Nowell and Joseph Rea, M.D. 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 6 of 16
-7- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

34. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff asserts Drs. Nowell and Rea may be 

long time medical consultants for Aetna and/or the disability insurance industry. As a 

result, Drs. Nowell and Rea may have a conflict of interest and have an incentive to protect 

their own consulting relationships with Aetna, and/or the disability insurance industry by 

providing medical records only “paper reviews,” which selectively review or ignore 

evidence such as occurred in Plaintiff’s claim, in order to provide opinions and report(s) 

which are favorable to insurance companies and that unreasonably supported the denial of 

Plaintiff’s claim. 

35. Plaintiff further asserts that pursuant to the relevant ERISA regulation, 29 

C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(3), Joseph Rea, M.D., was not an appropriate medical professional 

to conduct a review of his claim, because he did not have the appropriate medical expertise, 

training and/or credentials to adequately review all of Plaintiff’s disabling diagnoses. In 

having Dr. Rea review the claim, rather than an appropriate medical professional who had 

the relevant medical expertise to do so, Aetna violated ERISA 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-

1(h)(3). As a result of Aetna retaining and then relying on Dr. Rea’s review to deny 

Plaintiff’s claim, Aetna failed to provide a “full and fair” review pursuant to ERISA. 

36. Prior to rendering its December 15, 2016 final denial in Plaintiff’s claim, 

Aetna unlawfully never shared with Plaintiff, or his treating medical professionals 

(critically, who all opined he was disabled and unable to work), the medical records only 

“paper reviews” authored by Drs. Nowell and Rea, so they could respond to the reports by 

addressing any issues and/or deficiencies Aetna believed were present in Plaintiff’s claim. 

37. Aetna’s failure to provide an unrepresented Plaintiff and his treating medical 

professionals with its doctors’ reports before issuing its final denial was not the action of a 

fiduciary, because they precluded a “full and fair” review pursuant to ERISA. This failure 

by Aetna precluded Plaintiff from curing any alleged deficiencies Aetna believed existed in 

his claim. The alleged deficiencies were not inconsequential; Aetna relied on its doctors’ 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 7 of 16
-8- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

opinions and their rationales to deny his claim. Aetna’s failure to act as his fiduciary in not 

providing its doctors’ reports to Plaintiff during his appeal precluded him from being able to 

perfect and prove his claim pursuant to ERISA. 

38. During a November 2, 2016 telephone conversation with one of Plaintiff’s 

treating medical professionals, he informed Dr. Rea that “currently, specialists were 

involved in [Plaintiff’s treatment of migraine headaches]...” and “...that the headache 

specialist at their Mayo Clinic facility believes that the migraine headaches were a disabling 

factor.” 

39. Dr. Rea’s bias and conflict of interest is evidenced by the fact that even when 

he knew one of Plaintiff’s treating board certified MAYO CLINIC physicians (who treated 

Plaintiff for one of his disabling medical conditions) believed he was disabled; incredibly, 

Dr. Rea never contacted Plaintiff’s MAYO CLINIC physician at any time during his 

review, or before he authored his medical records only “paper review.” 

40. Dr. Rea apparently declined to contact Plaintiff’s MAYO CLINIC physician 

regarding his opinion that Plaintiff was disabled, even though Dr. Rea was aware that his 

opinion that Plaintiff was not disabled was completely contradicted by Plaintiff’s MAYO 

CLINIC treating physician’s opinion, which was that Plaintiff was disabled. 

41. Aetna’s failure to provide Plaintiff and his treating medical professionals with 

the opportunity to respond to Drs. Nowell and Rea’s reports is an ERISA procedural 

violation, and precluded Aetna from providing Plaintiff with a “full and fair” review as 

required by ERISA. Aetna’s actions also violated Ninth Circuit case law as the Court held 

in Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, 642 F.3d 666, 680 (9th Cir. 2011): 

“The plan evidently based its denial in large part on review of Salomaa's file by two 

physicians, one for the first denial, another for the final denial. They both wrote 

their appraisals for the plan administrator. Yet the plan failed to furnish their letters 

to Salomaa or his lawyer. The regulation, quoted above, requires an ERISA plan to 

furnish ‘all documents, records, and other information relevant for benefits to the 

claimant.’ A physician's evaluation provided to the plan administrator falls squarely 

within this disclosure requirement” (emphasis added). 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 8 of 16
-9- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

42. In an October 6, 2016 medical record from Plaintiff’s treating medical 

professional, which was submitted to Aetna on appeal, the medical professional confirmed 

on that day he had a telephone conversation with Stuart Orsher, M.D., a physician 

employed/contracted by Plaintiff’s Company to evaluate Plaintiff’s ability to return to work 

in his occupation with the Company. 

43. Plaintiff’s October 6, 2016 medical record confirms that during their 

conversation, Plaintiff’s medical professional documented the substance of the telephone 

call with Dr. Orsher and his opinion by noting, “Given [Plaintiff] is in a high functioning 

position...Dr. Orsher denied him to be able to return to work.”

44. An October 5, 2016 “Show All Notes Report” (Aetna’s internal claim notes) 

confirms Aetna was aware of Dr. Orsher’s opinion several months prior to issuing its final 

denial on December 15, 2016, “ER [employer] is not letting [Plaintiff] come back under 

his current condition...” 

45. Aetna’s October 5, 2016 “Show All Notes Report” in the Administrative 

Record confirms that prior to denying Plaintiff’s claim on December 15, 2016, Aetna was 

aware the Company’s own doctor, Dr. Orsher, did not believe Plaintiff could return to work, 

and that the Company would not allow Plaintiff to return to work in his prior occupation due 

to his disabling medical conditions. 

46. Notwithstanding the fact that Aetna and its own reviewing medical 

professionals’ opinions totally contradicted Dr. Orsher’s opinion, prior to issuing its 

December 15, 2016 final denial, neither Aetna nor its reviewing medical professionals ever 

personally contacted or communicated with Dr. Orsher to discuss Plaintiff’s claim and/or 

Dr. Orsher’s opinion that Plaintiff was unable to work. 

47. Plaintiff asserts that the Company and Dr. Orsher’s review of his disability 

claim, and their conclusion that due to his medical conditions and limitations he was not 

able to return to his occupation with the Company, is evidence of the decision that an unCase 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 9 of 16
-10- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

conflicted entity would make based on essentially the same evidence that Aetna reviewed, 

before issuing its December 15, 2016 final denial letter. 

48. In Aetna’s letter dated December 15, 2016, notwithstanding Plaintiff’s 

aforementioned evidence which clearly proved he met the definition of disability in the 

Policy, and that the Company’s own doctor (Dr. Orsher) would not allow Plaintiff to return 

to work in his occupation, Aetna notified him that it had again denied his claim for longterm disability benefits. 

49. In its denial letter dated December 15, 2016, Aetna notified Plaintiff he had 

exhausted his administrative levels of review and that he could file a civil action lawsuit in 

federal court pursuant to ERISA. 

50. Aetna’s December 15, 2016 denial letter is clear evidence that it breached its 

ERISA fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and failed to provide a “full and fair review,” as required 

by ERISA. During its review, Aetna either negligently or intentionally committed 

numerous ERISA procedural violations as identified herein which allowed Aetna to deny 

Plaintiff’s claim even though ERISA’s regulations were enacted to protect individual’s 

rights, such as Plaintiff’s. 

51. Aetna’s ERISA violations include but are not limited to, completely failing to 

credit, reference, consider, and/or selectively reviewing and de-emphasizing most, if not all 

of Plaintiff’s reliable evidence which proved that he met the definition of disability in the 

Policy, and failing to provide its medical reviewers’ reports to Plaintiff and his medical 

professionals during his appeal, and at a time when it mattered so they could respond to 

them, which was prior to when Aetna issued its final denial on December 15, 2016. 

52. Subsequent to Aetna’s December 15, 2016 final denial, Plaintiff applied for 

and was approved for and is currently receiving Social Security disability benefits through 

the Social Security Administration (hereinafter referred to as the “SSA”). 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 10 of 16
-11- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

53. The SSA found Plaintiff became disabled from engaging in any gainful 

occupation which may have existed in the national economy as of January 6, 2016, the same 

date as Plaintiff’s date of disability in his Aetna LTD claim. Plaintiff’s medical evidence 

was so compelling to SSA that it approved his claim without SSA requiring him to attend a 

hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. 

54. SSA’s definition of disability (i.e. Plaintiff must be disabled from any 

occupation) is more stringent and difficult to meet than the aforementioned definition of 

disability in the Aetna Policy (Plaintiff must only be disabled from his own occupation). 

55. Therefore, SSA’s review and approval of Plaintiff’s SSA claim is relevant 

conflict of interest evidence for this Court to consider with regard to the unreasonableness 

and unlawfulness of Aetna’s contrary decision, which was to deny Plaintiff’s claim and his 

long-term disability benefits. 

56. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claim on appeal, Aetna owed him a fiduciary duty 

and had an obligation pursuant to ERISA to administer it, “solely in [his] best interests and 

other participants” which it failed to do. 1

 

57. Aetna failed to adequately investigate and failed to engage an unrepresented 

Plaintiff in a dialogue during the appeal of his claim with regard to what evidence was 

necessary so Plaintiff could perfect his claim/appeal in order to prove that he is disabled as 

that term is defined in the Policy. Aetna’s failure to investigate the claim and to engage in 

this dialogue, and failure to ask for and/or obtain the evidence it believed was necessary and 

 

1

 It sets forth a special standard of care upon a plan administrator, namely, that the 

administrator "discharge [its] duties" in respect to discretionary claims processing "solely 

in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries" of the plan, § 1104(a)(1); it 

simultaneously underscores the particular importance of accurate claims processing by 

insisting that administrators "provide a 'full and fair review' of claim denials," Firestone, 

489 U.S., at 113, 109 S. Ct. 948, 103 L. Ed. 2d 80 (quoting § 1133(2)); and it 

supplements marketplace and regulatory controls with judicial review of individual claim 

denials, see § 1132(a)(1)(B). Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343, 2350 (U.S. 

2008). 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 11 of 16
-12- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

critical to cure any deficiencies so Plaintiff could perfect his claim, is particularly egregious 

given the nature and severity of Plaintiff’s disabling medical conditions and because he was 

unrepresented throughout Aetna’s review. Aetna’s failure to engage in a dialogue is 

evidence that its denial of Plaintiff’s claim was motivated by its conflict of interest, it is also 

an ERISA procedural violation which also violates Ninth Circuit case law and is evidence 

that he did not receive a “full and fair” review. 

58. Plaintiff asserts Aetna provided an unlawful review which was neither full nor 

fair and that violated ERISA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 2560.503-1, by failing to credit 

Plaintiff’s reliable evidence; by failing to have Plaintiff’s claim reviewed by truly 

independent medical professionals; by failing to have Plaintiff’s claim reviewed by an 

appropriate medical professional who had relevant medical expertise and training as 

required by ERISA 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(3), 3(iii); by unlawfully inserting a Policy 

requirement that Plaintiff had to prove his claim with objective medical evidence when 

there is no such term or requirement in the Policy; by failing to consider the opinion of Dr. 

Orsher, the Company’s own doctor who opined Plaintiff was disabled and unable to work; 

by failing to obtain an Independent Medical Examination when the Policy allowed for one 

and Plaintiff’s disabling medical conditions and work limitations could not be easily 

understood with only a medical records “paper review,” or a Functional Capacity 

Evaluation, which raises legitimate questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of its 

review and denials; by providing biased and one sided reviews of Plaintiff’s claim that 

failed to consider all the evidence submitted by him and/or by de-emphasizing medical and 

other evidence which supported Plaintiff’s claim; by disregarding and/or failing to consider 

Plaintiff’s disabling subjective and self-reported complaints/symptoms/limitations; by 

failing to consider the combined effect that all of his medical conditions and resulting 

limitations documented in his medical evidence would have on his ability to work in his 

occupation; by failing to engage Plaintiff in a dialogue so he and his medical professionals 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 12 of 16
-13- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

could respond to Aetna’s reviewing medical professionals’ reports by submitting the 

necessary evidence to perfect his claim so he could prove he is “disabled” as that term is 

defined in the Policy, and by failing to consider the impact the side effects that Plaintiff's 

medications would have on his ability to engage in his “Own Occupation.” 

59. Plaintiff asserts a reason Aetna provided an unlawful review which was 

neither full nor fair and that violated ERISA, specifically, 29 U.S.C. § 2560.503-1, is due to 

its financial conflict of interest that manifested as a result of the dual roles Aetna undertook 

as the decision maker and the payor of benefits. Aetna’s conflict of interest provided it with 

a financial incentive to deny Plaintiff’s long-term disability claim. 

60. Aetna’s conflict of interest manifested when it denied Plaintiff’s claim 

because due to its denial of his claim, Aetna saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in 

disability benefits that it did not have to pay Plaintiff, even though he is legally entitled to 

them. 

61. Aetna’s conflict of interest also manifested because it approved Plaintiff’s 

short-term disability claim when the definition of disability in both policies was essentially 

the same, as was the evidence, but Aetna incurred no financial liability when it found 

Plaintiff was disabled and approved his short-term disability claim. When Plaintiff’s shortterm disability claim ended and he was paid all short-term disability benefits due by the 

Company, Aetna was then confronted with potentially being liable to pay Plaintiff hundreds 

of thousands of dollars in benefits in his long-term disability claim if it approved it; instead, 

due to its conflict of interest Aetna chose to deny the long-term disability claim. 

62. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding how Aetna evaluates claims which 

transition from short-term to long-term disability, as well as statistics regarding the rate at 

which Aetna approves and denies these claims, given Aetna’s conflict of interest and its 

contradictory decisions in approving Plaintiff’s short-term disability claim when it had no 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 13 of 16
-14- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

financial liability and then denying his long-term disability claim when Aetna was fully 

liable for its decision. 

63. Plaintiff is entitled to discovery regarding Aetna’s aforementioned conflicts of 

interest referenced herein, as well as of any third party vendor hired by Aetna and of any 

medical professional retained by a third party vendor to review Plaintiff’s claim, and of any

individual, medical professional or otherwise, who reviewed his medical evidence or claim. 

64. The Court may properly weigh and consider extrinsic evidence regarding the 

nature, extent and effect of any conflict of interest and/or any ERISA procedural violation 

which may have impacted or influenced Aetna’s decision to deny his long-term disability 

claim. 

65. The standard of review for this Court to apply is de novo as the Aetna Policy 

does not contain discretionary language. 

66. In denying his claim, Plaintiff alleges Aetna failed to provide a full and fair 

review pursuant to ERISA, and that its denial of his long-term disability claim is a de novo

wrong decision, because his evidence proves that he met the definition of disability in the 

Aetna Policy. 

67. If the Court concludes the Policy confers discretion and the standard of 

review is for abuse of discretion, Plaintiff asserts that Aetna’s decision which resulted from 

its conflict of interest and its numerous unlawful ERISA violations as referenced herein, 

constitutes an abuse of discretion. Plaintiff also asserts that in denying Plaintiff’s claim, 

Aetna did not provide a “full and fair” review as required by law and its ERISA violations 

are so flagrant they justify de novo review. Regardless of the standard of review, Plaintiff is 

entitled to discovery regarding the conflicts of interest, bias and ERISA procedural 

violations referenced herein. 

68. As a direct result of Aetna’s decision to deny Plaintiff’s disability claim, he 

has been injured and suffered damages in the form of lost long-term disability benefits in 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 14 of 16
-15- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

addition to other potential non-disability employee benefits he may be entitled to receive 

through or from the Plan, from any other Company Plan and/or the Company as a result of 

being found disabled in this matter. Plaintiff believes that other potential non-disability 

employee benefits may include but not be limited to, health insurance (coverage) and other 

insurance related coverage or benefits, retirement benefits or a pension, life insurance 

coverage and/or the waiver of the premium on a life insurance policy providing coverage for 

him and his family/dependents. Plaintiff seeks any and all employee benefits, and/or any 

other benefits he may be due from Defendants as a result of being found disabled in this 

matter. 

69. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132, Plaintiff is entitled to recover unpaid 

disability and non-disability employee benefits, prejudgment interest, reasonable 

attorney's fees and costs from Defendants. 

70. Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest at the legal rate pursuant to A.R.S. 

§20-462, or at such other rate as is appropriate to compensate him for the losses he has 

incurred as a result of Defendants’ nonpayment of benefits. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: 

 A. For an Order finding that the evidence in Plaintiff’s claim is sufficient to 

prove he met and continues to meet the definition of disability set forth in the relevant 

Plan and/or Policy and that he is entitled to disability benefits, and any other nondisability employee benefits that he may be entitled to as a result of that Order, from the 

date he was first entitled to but denied these benefits through the date of judgment with 

prejudgment interest thereon; 

 B. For an Order directing Defendants to continue paying Plaintiff the 

aforementioned benefits until such a time as he meets the conditions for the termination of 

benefits; 

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 15 of 16
-16- 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 C. For attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of prosecuting this suit 

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(g); and 

 D. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

DATED this 21st day of February, 2018. 

 SCOTT E. DAVIS. P.C.

 By: /s/ Scott E. Davis 

 Scott E. Davis 

 Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:18-cv-00578-SPL Document 1 Filed 02/21/18 Page 16 of 16