Disability Claim Litigation

Our law firm will do everything to secure your disability benefits at the earliest possible time. However, in many instances, after a disability claim has been denied or terminated, it should be litigated. Some insurance companies and Administrative Law Judges force claimants to go to court in the hope that they will not pursue their disability claim. Our law firm has over a quarter century of litigation experience, and will not hesitate to file a lawsuit in order to get your disability benefits.

Litigation of many disability insurance claims and Social Security Disability claims are governed by federal law and take place in federal court. Disability claims that are not subject to ERISA are governed by state law and may proceed in either state or federal court. Regardless of the court in which you may need to litigate, we will explain the legal process to you in easily understandable language. At all stages of the litigation process, we will point out the issues to you and allow you to make the ultimate decision on important matters.

There is important news for New Yorkers whose disability benefits through their work or union were denied or terminated. When a court reviews a denial or termination of a New Yorker's disability benefits, it usually has to uphold that decision unless it was "arbitrary and capricious." That means even if the claimant has the better case, the insurance company or plan administrator could win. "Discretionary clauses" are what triggers the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. 

Some federal district court from outside New York have been ruling that discretionary clauses are not enforceable.  Disability insurance companies misuse discretionary clauses to deny benefits to claimants. 

Discretionary clauses are contract provisions that grant an insurance company or administrator the unrestricted authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to interpret terms and provisions of the policy, contract or certificate.  An example is: “the company has full, exclusive, and discretionary authority to determine all questions arising in connection with the policy, including its interpretation.”  Most disability policies that employers buy to cover their workers include discretionary clauses.Over 20 States prohibit discretionary clauses in insurance policies because they have been found to be unjust, unfair and inequitable.  New York once banned discretionary clauses, but the insurance lobby succeeded in having the insurance regulations banning those clauses withdrawn.

Discretionary clauses place the insured at a great disadvantage in any disagreement over the meaning of the insurance contract, usurp the role of the courts in deciding a matter of law, that is, the meaning of the contract, and exacerbate the insurer’s inherent conflict of interest in being both the entity that pays and decides what does or does not need to be paid.  In other words, the insurance company profits increase when it denies and terminates claims.  As noted by the Supreme Court in Metlife v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 128 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), where an insurer both determines whether an employee is eligible for benefits and pays those benefits out of its own pocket, there is a conflict of interest. This conflict would be mitigated by prohibiting discretionary clauses and lessening the insurer’s discretion to decide what the contract means.

Discretionary clauses are also unjust and contrary to the laws of this State because the deferential standard of review is opposed to the common law doctrine that ambiguities in insurance contracts should be construed in favor of the insured.  Moreover, discretionary clauses in insurance contracts are misleading because policyholders probably do not understand when reading these clauses that they are giving up the right to a neutral, merits-based review of the insurer’s decisions and the meaning of the policy, and that the insurer as a practical matter could proceed with essentially absolute discretion as to what the policy means.  Disability insurers always argue that they have the discretion to deny or terminate benefits by relying exclusively on the opinions of their doctors, who reject the opinions of the treating doctors, regardless of what the evidence reveals.

A disability or health insurance policy is a contract.  The interpretation of a contract is a matter of law and ordinarily questions of law are for the judiciary to decide. In a lawsuit on a contract, such as when an insured sues an insurer, a court looks at the question of law de novo, i.e., without regard for how the contract might have been initially interpreted by the insurer.  However, when a discretionary clause is present, it usurps the role of the courts because they are required to give deference to the insurer’s interpretation of the contract, and will only overturn the insurer’s view if the court finds the insurer’s decision was arbitrary and capricious.  This leads insurers to deny and terminate claims that they know should be approved.

A client that I am currently representing illustrates a concrete example of what is at stake.  She is covered by two disability policies that were issued by First Unum.  One policy grants discretionary authority, while the other does not.  First Unum found that my client can perform her own occupation, and has denied benefits, under the policy that it mistakenly thinks grants it discretionary authority.  At the same time, based upon the same, and actually less, evidence, First Unum found my client was disabled from any occupation under the policy that does not grant discretionary authority.

Insurance companies’ widespread abuse due to discretionary clauses prompted some regulatory authorities to take action.  In 2002, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (the “NAIC”) issued a model act entitled “Prohibition on the Use of Discretionary Clauses” (the “Model Act”).  When an insurance company issues a group disability policy, a discretionary clause grants the insurer or administrator the authority to determine eligibility for benefits and to interpret terms and provisions of the policy.  The purpose of the Model Act is to prohibit clauses that purport to reserve discretion to the insurer to interpret the terms of a disability insurance policy.

The abuse of discretionary authority by the insurance became so widespread that the media covered the issue.  On October 13, 2002, NBC Dateline did an expose called “Benefit of the Doubt”. The story described how Unum, the largest disability insurance provider, had systematically manipulated and created evidence in order to create excuses to deny and terminate disability claims.  On November 20, 2002, CBS 60 Minutes also did an expose on Unum called “Did Insurer Cheat Disabled Clients?” The 60 Minutes piece detailed how Unum forced doctors to manufacture evidence as a means to deny and terminate disability claims.

The abuses by Unum resulted in the U.S. Department of Labor and 49 State Insurance Departments bringing an action against Unum that resulted in a regulatory settlement agreement. Among other things, Unum was forced to reassess hundreds of thousands of disability claims that it had denied or terminated.  Although Unum continues to engage in the same tactics that led to the agreement, no further action has been taken, and other disability insurers are now following Unum’s lead.  Perhaps no further regulatory action has been taken because many states have now banned discretionary authority.

On March 27, 2006, New York State Insurance Department issued Circular Letter No. 8 that adopted the NAIC Model Act. The letter stated that “discretionary clause provisions in accident and health insurance policies and in subscriber contracts will no longer be approved by the Department” because “The Department has determined that the use of discretionary clauses violates Sections 3201(c) and 4308(a) of the Insurance Law in that the provisions ‘encourage misrepresentation or are unjust, unfair, inequitable, misleading, deceptive, or contrary to law or to the public policy of this state.’  Additionally, the Department believes that the use of discretionary clauses is an unfair or deceptive act or practice, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Insurance Law.”

In what is already a contract of adhesion, i.e., one that a consumer has no choice but to accept, discretionary clauses skew the balance of power even further in favor of the insurer.  In other words, when a disability policy in New York grants the insurer discretionary authority, New Yorkers are at a severe disadvantage in any contest over questions of coverage, eligibility and interpretations and applications of the provisions of the contract for the simple reason that the insurer included a discretionary clause in the contract.  If discretionary clauses are prohibited, then the courts apply the de novo standard of review, and are free to substitute their own judgment for that of the insurer.  If a matter comes to court, the consumer faces a level playing field, and is better protected.

What is perhaps most affected by the differing standards of review is the mindset of the insurer – its confidence that whatever it decides is sacrosanct under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, as opposed to the more cautious approach it would take knowing that its decisions would be reviewed de novo.  My experience has shown that whenever a court rules that a de novo standard of review applies, the insurer immediately seeks to settle the case, which is a tacit admission that the insurer knew its decision was wrong.

Recognizing that a level playing field would require insurers to stop denying and terminating claims, the insurance lobby prevailed upon the Insurance Department to withdraw the Model Act just three months after it was adopted.  On June 29, 2006, the Insurance Department issued Circular Letter No. 14, which withdrew the ban.  The Letter stated that discretionary clauses that require courts to review disability and medical insurance claims under an arbitrary and capricious standard of review rather than de novo review negate essential features of the policies, as well as statutorily required appeal rights, which nullifies the insurer’s responsibility to pay.  The Insurance Department found that discretionary clauses were likely to mislead the policyholder, contract holder or certificate holder; were “unjust, unfair or inequitable; and were an “unfair or deceptive act or trade practice.”  While no longer banning discretionary clauses, the Insurance Department stated that it was “drafting regulations that would prohibit the use of discretionary clauses” in insurance policies.  That was a long time
ago.

In April 2010, the Insurance Department asked for comments about proposed regulations to ban discretionary clauses, but no regulations were enacted.  In 2014, I spoke with Insurance Department-Department of Financial Services representatives, and they said that it was highly unlikely that anyone would be drafting any regulations to ban discretionary clauses now.

Over twenty States have enacted legislation to ban discretionary clauses, and the list includes “Red” States such as Texas and “Blue States” such as Illinois and California. Adopting the Model Act levels the playing field when the disabled are forced to sue insurance companies to receive their benefits.  Having a fair claim review process is not a Democratic or Republican issue.  How long must New Yorkers wait for similar protection?

The New York State Assemblymember, who is the Chair of the Committee on Insurance, is probably unaware of the problem with discretionary clauses.  He/she needs to be made aware of the problems that New Yorkers have experienced when insurance companies have denied or terminated their disability benefits.  Unbeknownst to many if not most employees, their benefits were denied or terminated under a policy that granted the insurance company discretionary authority. If you or anyone you know has experienced a problem receiving disability benefits under a disability plan through work, let your Assemblymemberl know about your problem. 



 


 

  • Fast SSD Approvals
    I represent a former road technician from Florida, and a former electrician from New York, who were approved today for Social Security Disability benefits in...
  • Video Representation
    I represent a former nurse whose claim for Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits was approved today by an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) from Albany. ...
  • Treating Doctor CE
    The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) invariably sends notices to applicants seeking Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits stating that they to attend a consultative examination ("CE”)....

D. G.

"I contacted Jeff Delott over the internet and within 24 hours he contacted me by phone. Mr. Delott was extremely knowledgeable and upfront about what records I would need to produce to win the case. I had filed for SSD by myself and was denied twice. With his expertise he had it overturned with a fully favorable decision within a few months and I did not have to go in front of an ALJ. He was very responsive throughout my case and he did not give up! I would highly recommend Jeff Delott to anyone needing a disability lawyer. My family gives him two thumbs up on his aggressiveness and dedication to my disability case."
A. B.

“From the moment I hobbled into his office, Jeffrey was quite clear on how he would attack the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of several reports of Hartford people. I couldn’t help crying when Jeff told me my benefits were being reinstated because I was so overwhelmed with joy and shock. I never win anything. I know this could never have happened without the aggressive skills of Jeff."
B.L.

Thank you so for taking my case when nobody else would. Thank you for seeing that I had a case when no other lawyer would touch me. Only you saw that there was hope. I can't thank you enough for taking all my calls through all my doubts. You are indeed a great savior. I will recommend you to anyone who asks.
N. D.

"I could not believe how quickly my case was approved. If it were not for all your hard work and dedication I know I would not have had this quick and favorable outcome. I truly appreciate you walking me through this complicated process, and taking the time to answer all of my many questions."
A. B.

"From the moment I hobbled into his office, Jeffrey was quite clear on how he would attack the inaccuracies and inconsistencies of several reports of Hartford people. I couldn’t help crying when Jeff told me my benefits were being reinstated because I was so overwhelmed with joy and shock. I never win anything. I know this could never have happened without the aggressive skills of Jeff."
M.C.

"I was certain I made the right choice hiring Jeff Delott from the very beginning, and my certainty was consistently validated every step of the way. Jeff kept me informed, always responded personally to my concerns within 24 hours, and was a relentless warrior on my behalf. Jeff understands why you need his services, and he treats you with respect while aggressively and expertly handling your situation."