Source: https://www.lexislegalnews.com/mealeys-disability-insurance
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:26:26+00:00

Document:
NEW YORK — A district court did not err in finding that a disability claimant’s suit is barred by a disability policy’s three-year limitations provision because the limitations provision is not unreasonably short and the claimant did not file suit until more than seven years later, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 12 in affirming the lower court’s opinion (Susan Arkun v. Unum Group, et al., No. 17-3354, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10843).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A disability claimant urges the U.S. Supreme Court in a March 29 petition for writ of certiorari to accept review of his disability suit to resolve the question of whether a plan fiduciary with discretionary authority should be given deference over compliance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s claims procedures and regulations (Timothy P. O’Leary v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 18-1266, U.S. Sup., 2019 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1278).
FORT SMITH, Ark. — An Arkansas federal judge on April 9 determined that a disability claimant was deprived of a full and fair review of her disability claim because the plan administrator failed to identify and consider the material duties of the claimant’s occupation (Dinora Reyes v. USAble Life, et al., No. 18-2075, W.D. Ark., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61002).
DETROIT — A disability claimant’s benefits must be reinstated because the evidence supports a finding that the claimant is not capable of performing the duties of any occupation, a Michigan federal judge said April 10 (Carianne DeRoo v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 18-11216, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61531).
NEW ORLEANS — A disability insurer did not abuse its discretion in terminating a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits because substantial evidence supported the insurer’s finding that the claimant was not disabled from her own occupation as an attorney as a result of migraine headaches, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 4 (Amanda C. Foster v. Principal Life Insurance Co., No. 17-30997, 5th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9946).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on April 5 adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation that a bench trial be scheduled in a disability benefits dispute because issues of fact exist regarding the claimant’s ability to perform the duties of his own occupation (Farooq Khan v. Provident Life & Accident Co., No. 15-811, W.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59204).
CINCINNATI — A district court erred in denying a disability claimant’s request for attorney fees because the disability insurer’s decision-making process in denying benefits was not legally supported, the majority of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 1 in reversing the lower court’s ruling (Kimberly J. Guest-Marcotte v. Life Insurance Company of North America, et al., No. 18-1948, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9481).
DENVER — A disability insurer incorrectly classified a disability claimant’s employment position with a pharmaceutical company, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said April 2 after determining that the evidence supports a district court’s conclusion that the claimant’s position qualified as a sales position under the plan, entitling the claimant to an increased amount of monthly disability benefits (Lou Hodges v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 18-1279, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9601).
BOSTON — A disability plan did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits because the plan’s decision to deny the claim after determining that the claimant was not physically disabled from performing the duties of his sedentary occupation was reasonable and supported by the evidence, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said March 29 (Dionisio Santana-Díaz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 17-1428, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9368).
GREENSBORO, N.C. — A disability plan claims administrator did not abuse its discretion in denying a claimant’s short-term disability (STD) benefits claim, a North Carolina federal judge said March 28 after determining that the claims administrator’s decision was supported by substantial evidence (Eric Jones v. Charter Communications Short Term Disability Plan, No. 17-863, M.D. N.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52345).
INDIANAPOLIS — A disability claimant is permitted to file an amended complaint to allege a breach of contract claim under Alabama law against a disability income insurer, an Indiana federal judge said March 28 after determining that Alabama law must be applied to the disability benefits dispute (Chad E. Mathis, M.D. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a/k/a MetLife, et al., No. 18-1893, S.D. Ind., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52703).
HUNTINGTON, W.Va. — A disability insurer did not abuse its discretion in denying a long-term disability (LTD) benefits claim because the insurer considered all of the medical evidence and consulted with two physicians before denying the claim, a West Virginia federal judge said March 27 (Genka Popov v. University Physicians & Surgeons Inc. Long Term Disability Plan, et al., No. 18-296, S.D. W.Va., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51685).
BALTIMORE — A disability insurer’s termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits was not an abuse of discretion, a Maryland federal judge said March 25, noting that substantial evidence supported the insurer’s termination (Rosalyn Irving v. The Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 17-3206, D. Md., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49261).
PHOENIX — Reconsideration of a ruling that a disability insurer did not breach its contract or act in bad faith by denying a claim for benefits is not warranted, an Arizona federal judge said March 25 in rejecting the claimant’s argument that reconsideration is justified because the disability insurer did not accurately state the disability onset date (Cynthia Cheney v. United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, et al., No. 17-0004, D. Ariz., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14742).
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — A disability insurer’s termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits was arbitrary and capricious because the insurer improperly ignored favorable evidence submitted by the claimant’s treating physicians and selectively reviewed the medical evidence, a Michigan federal judge said March 20 (Christopher Carr v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 17-14101, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45421).
PITTSBURGH — A Pennsylvania federal magistrate judge on March 15 recommended denying a disability claimant’s motion for summary judgment and granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the decision to terminate the claimant’s disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious (Gregory Addington v. Senior Vice President Human Resources Consol Energy Inc. et al., No. 17-444, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43830).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge on March 20 denied a disability claimant’s motion for judgment on the administrative record after determining that the disability insurer conducted a full and fair review and that the insurer was entitled to terminate the claimant’s benefits after the claimant failed to comply with its request for additional information (Emmanuel J. Quarles v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., No. 15-372, W.D. Ky., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45908).
SAVANNAH, Ga. — A disability insurer’s termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because the medical evidence supports the insurer’s conclusion that the claimant is not disabled from working in any gainful occupation, a Georgia federal judge said March 18 (Michelle Lord v. American General Life Insurance Company of Delaware, No. 17-167, S.D. Ga., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43992).
RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A disability insurer’s termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits was improper because the evidence shows that the claimant could not type for more than 60 minutes a day and her usual occupation required five to six hours of typing per day, a California federal judge said March 11 in entering judgment in favor of the claimant (Jennett Harlow v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al., No. 17-2091, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40890).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.