Source: https://www.disabilitylawblog.com/articles/disability-insurance-cases-nationwide/reliance-standard/
Timestamp: 2018-06-24 06:43:19
Document Index: 565543544

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132', '§ 1132']

Reliance Standard | Disability Insurance Claims Law Blog
Subscribe to Reliance Standard
Continue Reading If Claimant Can Work in Own Occupation She Can Work in Any Occupation
Continue Reading Reliance Standard abused its discretion when failing to conduct in-person exam for psychiatric disability
By Gregory Dell on July 8, 2014
Continue Reading Court Upholds Reliance Standard’s Decision to Deny Continued Long Term Disability Benefits to former GAF Materials Corporation Employee
A BellSouth Customer Service Assistant, with the help of his North Carolina Disability Attorney, was forced to file a lawsuit against Sedgwick after being denied continued disability benefits.
A representative from the American Chronic Pain Association and a Fibromyalgia physician recently appeared on a local news station to discuss Fibromyalgia and methods for treating Fibromyalgia.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company Sued By United Dairy Farmers Employee For Wrongful Termination of Long Term Disability Benefits
By Gregory Dell on April 4, 2012
In Daniel C. Vs Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the Plaintiff has filed a lawsuit with the help of his Ohio Disability Lawyer for the termination of long term disability benefits that were promised under the Plan provided by Plaintiff’s employer, United Dairy Farmers, Inc. (UDF).
Plaintiff worked at UDF from 1988 to 2006, seven years as a Store Manager, six years as an Area Supervisor, and five years as a Zone Manager for multiple UDF stores. Plaintiff was earning a monthly salary of $5,441.67 when he was unable to continue his work duties due to complications from human immunodeficiency virus disease (HIV).
Plaintiff’s HIV led to his developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), as well as a related peripheral neuropathy of his lower extremities, which caused pain so severe that it required daily pain treatment with morphine, along with the multiple medications he needed to control his HIV.
Reliance approved Plaintiff’s application for long term disability benefits according to the terms of the Plan in February 2007, with an effective date for benefits of December 18, 2006. In November 2009, Plaintiff was approved for total disability benefits through the Social Security Administration, with an effective date of March 2007. Reliance continued to pay LTD benefits to the Plaintiff through October 24, 2010.
Reliance Cuts Plaintiff Off From Further Long Term Disability Benefits
Via letter dated October 11, 2010, Reliance informed Plaintiff that a review of his medical records determined that he could do work at a sedentary level. Based on this, Reliance terminated future long term disability benefits effective October 24, 2010.
Plaintiff appealed this decision and presented additional records and comment from his primary care physician, a board certified family practice physician and specialist in the treatment of HIV and AIDS. The doctor concluded that the Plaintiff could work no longer than four hours per day. Additionally, his pain from peripheral neuropathy was only moderately controlled by the multiple narcotic medications he took, but these medications also caused added fatigue and concentration problems.
Reliance hired an occupational medicine specialist to perform a file review and independent medical examination of Plaintiff in July 2011. The Reliance IME physician concluded there was not sufficient information in the clinical record to support the plaintiff’s doctor’s peripheral neuropathy diagnosis or to confirm that the Plaintiff was actually taking the prescribed medications that caused his reported side effects. The IME physician stated that the Plaintiff was capable of light demand level, full-time work "if motivated."
As a result, of this review and examination, Reliance rejected Plaintiff’s appeal on August 11, 2011. Due to the exhaustion of all administrative remedies, Plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against Reliance.
Basis of Lawsuit Against Reliance
Plaintiff claims that Reliance unfairly, wrongfully and arbitrarily denied Plaintiff’s claim for long term disability benefits despite the Plaintiff’s submission of medical evidence from his primary care physician, a qualified specialist in his illness, that established that the Plaintiff remains unable to perform the duties of any full-time occupation.
Plaintiff Seeks Following Relief From Reliance
Plaintiff wants the Court to provide the following relief from Reliance:
All long term disability payments as defined by the terms of the Plan that have not been paid, along with accrued interest
Consequential damages and costs associated with this lawsuit
All reasonable attorney’s fees associated with this lawsuit
All other relief that the Court finds proper and appropriate
Suffering from multiple medical conditions and unable to function in a daily job, a health care professional and her Texas disability lawyer filed a lawsuit against Reliastar Life Insurance Company to force the insurer to pay disability benefits as contracted in an employee welfare benefit plan.
Recently, two Wells Fargo employees were forced to file Federal Lawsuist against Liberty Life after being denied disability benefits. Utilizing the services of an Alabama Disability Attorney and a Florida Disability Lawyer, the two lawsuits are currently pending. Let’s take a closer look at both cases:
Southern Freight and Nu Skin employees sue Reliance Standard for failing to pay disability benefits
By Gregory Dell on November 2, 2011
Two different ERISA lawsuits were recently filed by disability attorneys in California and Florida against Reliance Standard Insurance Company for the wrongful denial of disability benefits.
In the first case, the plaintiff, through a California disability attorney filed a lawsuit in the District Court for Eastern California. The plaintiff was employed by Nu Skin Enterprises. While working for Nu Skin Enterprises, the plaintiff participated in Nu Skin’s Long-Term Disability Package to its employees. Reliance was the plan administrator for the disability insurance plan.
The plaintiff applied for Long Term Disability through Reliance on June 1, 2007 due to falling ill and experiencing severe pain in both his hips and knees that kept him from being present at work and being unable to perform the duties of his position for three continuous years. Reliance stated its approval of Plaintiff’s claim for benefits on December 14, 2007. Plaintiff applied for Social Security benefits as required by the Plan and his disability began on June 1, 2007. Plaintiff received a back award of $21,769.68 from the Social Security Administration and made a payment in this same amount to Reliance to meet the terms of the Plan. Plaintiff still receives Social Security Disability Benefits.
On September 29, 2009, Reliance informed Plaintiff that further long-term disability benefits would be denied based on the condition that the Plaintiff was suffering from a mental or nervous disorder. Reliance informed Plaintiff that because he was not in a Hospital or Institution, he could not receive further payments beyond August 30, 2009, 24 months after the first benefits were paid out.
The plaintiff appealed the denial and was issued a final denial by Reliance on October 26, 2010. In the lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleged that Reliance breached the terms of the Plan, which has caused the Plaintiff to suffer currently and to continue suffering in the future.
The second lawsuit was filed at the Middle District Court for the District of Florida by a Florida disability attorney. The plaintiff in this case was an employee for Southern Freight. He was provided with a LTD coverage plan that was fully insured by Reliance. Plaintiff received short-term benefits that ran from January 26, 2010 to April 27, 2010. However, despite continuing to fulfill the definition of "disabled" as defined by the Plan and being backed by the written testimony of his physicians, Reliance denied LTD benefits on July 21, 2010.
In the aforementioned cases, the relief sought by the plaintiffs from Reliance in their lawsuits comprises of:
A declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to LTD benefits under their respective plans
Benefits that are due and have not been paid, as well as interest
By Gregory Dell on June 29, 2011
June 22, 2011 – A recent opinion from the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals has helped clarify the rules as to who you can sue in actions for benefits under a long term disability policy See Cyr v. Reliance Standard & Channel Technologies, 2011 WL 2464440, June 22, 2011. The Court concluded that under appropriate circumstances, an entity other than the plan itself or the plan administrator may be sued under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).
Laura Cyr was employed by Channel Technologies, Inc. ("CTI") as a vice president. CTI provided its employees with long term disability benefits under a program insured by defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company ("Reliance"). CTI was the plan administrator, and Reliance effectively controlled the decision whether to honor or deny a claim for benefits. In October 2000, Cyr filed a claim for long term disability benefits based on a back condition. Reliance approved the benefits and based her monthly payment on her salary of $85,000/year.
Ms. Cyr later filed suit against her employer, CTI, alleging gender discrimination. A settlement agreement was eventually reached which awarded Cyr a retroactive salary of $155,000/year. When Cyr asked Reliance to increase her monthly benefit amount in accord with her adjustment in salary, Reliance declined. Cyr was forced to file suit to pursue her claim for the increased benefits.
Cyr filed suit against Reliance, the CTI Group Long Term Disability Benefit Program (the ‘Plan’), and CTI as the plan administrator for the Plan. Reliance moved for summary judgment, arguing that only the plan or plan administrator could be held liable under the statute. Initially, the district court agreed with Reliance, but later the court changed its mind and ruled in favor of Cyr. Cyr was awarded fees, costs and interest on the money owed. In light of this ruling, Reliance appealed.
The issue for the Appellate Court was whether Reliance was a proper defendant in a suit for benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) even though it was neither a plan or plan administrator. The Court first noted that neither 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) nor 29 U.S.C. § 1132 stated any limits about who could be sued. Additionally, the Appellate Court looked to a United States Supreme Court ruling for guidance. In Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000), the Supreme Court addressed a similar question of who can be sued under a similar statute, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). In that case, the Supreme Court noted that 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) makes no mention at all of which parties may be proper defendants. The Court then ruled that there was no limit in 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) as to who could be sued.
Similarly, in the case at hand, the Appellate Court felt that because 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) contained no limitation as to who could be sued, the Court could not read a limitation into the statute. The Court concluded that parties other than plans can be sued for money damages as long as that party’s individual liability is established. The Court looked to related section 29 U.S.C. § 1132(d)(2) which provides that ‘any money judgment under this subsection against an employee benefit plan shall be enforceable only against the plan as an entity and shall not be enforceable against any other person unless liability against such person is established in his individual capacity under this subsection.’
In the case at hand, the Court determined that Reliance, as plan insurer who is responsible for paying legitimate benefits claims, is a logical and proper defendant for Cyr to recover benefits due, along with the plan and the plan administrator. The Court denied Reliance’s appeal.
Archives Select Month June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 November 2016 October 2016 August 2016 July 2016 May 2016 March 2016 January 2016 November 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 October 2008 June 2008 June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007