Disability

Subscribe to Disability via RSS

In petitioning for certiorari, Heimeshoff asked the Supreme Court to consider three questions:

1.         When should a statute of limitations accrue for judicial review of an ERISA disability adverse benefit determination?

2.         What notice regarding time limits for judicial review of an adverse benefit determination should an ERISA plan or its fiduciary give the claimant with a disability claim?

3.         When an ERISA plan or its fiduciary fails to give proper notice of the time limits for filing a judicial action to review denial of disability benefits, what is the remedy?

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, but only as to the first issue, as to which there was a conflict among the Circuits.

There are several axioms and rules underlying this case that are not in dispute.
Continue Reading Heimeshoff v. Hartford – Supreme Court Briefing

At the District Court, Heimeshoff also argued that the limitation period in the plan should be equitably tolled because, she claimed the applicable ERISA regulation required Hartford to disclose the limitation period in its denial letter, and it failed to do so. Hartford argued that it was irrelevant whether the regulation required disclosure because Heimeshoff and her attorney knew what the plan said, and their knowledge precluded them from seeking equitable tolling. Hartford also argued that the regulation did not require disclosure.
Continue Reading Hartford v. Heimeshoff – ERISA Regulations and Equitable Tolling

Hartford moved to dismiss the action because it was filed after the expiration of the policy’s contractual limitation period. The plain language of the Policy gave her until December 8, 2005 to submit proof of loss: she alleged that her disability began on June 6, 2005; the ninety-day Elimination Period would ordinarily end on September 6, 2005, but her Elimination Period lasted two days longer because Wal-Mart made salary continuation payments to her until September 8, 2005; the start of the period for which Hartford would owe payment (if Heimeshoff had proven disability) was September 9, 2005; proof of loss was due ninety days later, or December 8, 2005. The deadline for taking legal action was therefore three years after that, or December 8, 2008.
Continue Reading Heimeshoff v. Hartford – Motion to Dismiss

Any ERISA claim practitioner knows that a claimant is entitled to get a copy of the documents relevant to her claim on request and without charge. But when does the claimant’s right to this access become effective? More particularly, can the claim administrator defer production until after the claimant files an administrative appeal? A recent case in the Second Circuit suggests that it is sufficient to provide the claim file promptly after the appeal is filed. James v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2012 WL 4471541 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff’d, 2013 WL 4516424 (2d Cir. Aug. 27, 2013).
Continue Reading When Must a Claim Fiduciary Provide the Administrative Record? It May Be Later Than You Think

The tough disability claims are often the ones where it is difficult or impossible to prove the medical condition with objective evidence (something that can be observed or measured). This requires the plan fiduciary to decide whether the subjective evidence is adequate. A recent decision, which found the fiduciary got it wrong, provides helpful guidance on how a fiduciary can evaluate subjective evidence without abusing its discretion.
Continue Reading Court Provides Guidance on Assessing Disability Claims Based on Subjective Evidence

Disputes over what equitable remedies are “appropriate” under ERISA continue to percolate up to the Supreme Court. In its most-recent decision on the issue, US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen (April 16, 2013), the Court held that an equitable doctrine cannot supersede the terms of an ERISA plan.

The dispute involved a relatively routine claim over a relatively small amount of money. McCutchen was injured in a car accident with a drunk driver. US Airways, through its self-funded health plan, paid McCutchen $66,866 in medical expenses related to that accident. McCutchen hired a lawyer to pursue claims arising out of the accident; though his total alleged damages exceeded $1 million, he settled for $110,000. His attorneys took a 40% contingency fee, leaving McCutchen with $66,000. US Airways sought recovery of the $66,866 it had paid, pursuant to a provision in the health plan requiring McCutchen to reimburse US Airways “for amounts paid for claims out of any moneys recovered from [a] third party.” McCutchen refused the indemnification demand, but his attorneys put $41,500 of hiss money in escrow pending resolution of the dispute. That sum represented US Airways’ full claim less a proportionate share of the attorneys’ fees.

US Airways filed suit under ERISA, seeking “appropriate equitable relief” to enforce the plan’s reimbursement provision.

In the Supreme Court, McCutchen agreed that US Airways had an equitable lien by agreement over his recovery, but the question was whether the lien was subject to one or more equitable defenses that might reduce, or eliminate, its recovery.Continue Reading US Airways v. McCutchen: Supreme Court Revisits, Again, the Scope of Equitable Remedies

One of the great things about writing this blog is learning something new. I sometimes fall into the trap of determining the law on a particular issue in the circuit in which I practice most (the Second), and assume that other circuits are the same. Sometimes, though, it turns out that one circuit is not in step with the others, and one case can throw a monkey wrench into my world view.

The case that drew back the curtain for me on vesting of welfare benefits (an exciting topic, I know!), is Price v. Bd. of Trustees of Indiana Laborer’s Pension Fund, — F.3d –,  2013 WL 561354 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 2013) (“Price II”). Price II held that an ERISA fiduciary could enforce a plan amendment shortening the length of time disability benefits would be payable against a participant who was on claim at the time of the amendment.

At first read, the decision seemed bizarre, because I knew (or thought I knew) that welfare benefits like disability benefits could not be changed for a participant who was “on claim.” As the Second Circuit held: “as a matter of law[,] …absent explicit language to the contrary, a plan document providing for disability benefits promises that these benefits vest with respect to an employee no later than the time that the employee becomes disabled.” Feifer v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 306 F.3d 1202, 1212 (2d Cir. 2002). This rule means that you look to the plan language when the disability allegedly began, and subsequent amendments are irrelevant.

Though on re-reading Feifer, it was clear that the court recognized that other circuits approached this issue differently, that kind of caveat was not something that stuck with me. Then along came Price II and caused me to revisit the issue.
Continue Reading Vesting of Employee Welfare Benefits – Who Knew It Was So Complicated?

Often the most common divide between a participant claiming disability benefits and the claim administrator evaluating the claim is the weight to be given the opinion of a treating physician. Time was that a claimant argued that the administrator must defer to the treating physician, like the Social Security Administration does. That argument, at least in its basest form, has been eliminated in ERISA cases. Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834, 123 S.Ct. 1965, 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 1034 (2003) (“courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s physician”).

Often the argument is now made in a more limited fashion, or couched in different language. It might be argued that the administrator should have conducted an independent medical examination (suggesting that the opinion of a doctor who lays hands on the patient necessarily is better). It might be argued that some claims are particularly inhospitable to “paper reviews,” such as claims based on a mental illness or pain. Even where the treating physician argument does not explicitly surface, there is often an undercurrent running through disability claims in which the treating physician is placed on a somewhat higher plane than a physician who is compensated by the claim administrator. There is often the unexpressed notion that treating physicians are unbiased reporters of medical facts, while the motivation of a reviewing physician might not be equally pure.

There are, however, rulings by several courts that allow those who represent administrators to shade some of the glow enveloping treating physicians.
Continue Reading Examining the Treating Physician

ERISA claim practitioners generally have the concept of exhaustion of administrative remedies engrained in our thought process. They know well that claimants are required to exhaust their administrative remedies before they can sue over a benefit determination. Given the focus on this exhaustion requirement, it may surprise some to know that, in many circuits, the statute of limitations clock can begin to run well before administrative remedies are exhausted.
Continue Reading Statute of Limitations Can Start Running Before Claim Accrues