McKennon Law Group, Author at McKennon Law Group

On July 16, 2024, the Honorable Michael W. Fitzgerald denied American International Group, Inc.’s (“AIG”) motion to dismiss the lawsuit of McKennon Law Group, PC’s client, Silvana Olsen, which sought the higher pension benefit amount that Ms. Olsen was promised over many years. The court denied AIG’s motion to dismiss Ms. Olsen’s claims on the ground that he had not exhausted the pension plan’s claims procedure on her benefit claim and that her breach of fiduciary duty claim was not subject to that exhaustion requirement nor impermissibly duplicative of her claim for benefits.

In 1993 Ms. Olsen began working for a company that was later acquired by AIG in 1999. At the time of acquisition AIG informed Ms. Olsen and her coworkers that their prior years of service would be counted as credited service for purposes of AIG’s pension benefit plan. This was done to encourage Ms. Olsen and others to continue their employment with AIG. Ms. Olsen was sent periodic statements from AIG over several years which estimated her future monthly pension benefit based on a credited service date beginning in 1993.

In April 2023 Ms. Olsen submitted a claim for her pension. She was then informed by AIG’s Benefits Service Center (“Service Center”) that it had miscalculated her benefits because her credited service date under the AIG pension plan began in 2003, not 1993, which resulted in a significantly reduced monthly benefit. Ms. Olsen had several telephone calls with the Service Center in which she explained that she was owed the higher benefit amount. The Service Center maintained that under the pension plan she was owed a lower benefit, but she was invited to submit an appeal letter to AIG. Ms. Olsen did so in October 2023 and was informed by AIG in December 2023 that it had denied her appeal.

On behalf of Ms. Olsen, we filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. She brought two claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Her first claim was for the higher benefit amount and the second was for AIG’s breach of its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

AIG filed a motion to dismiss both claims. First, AIG argued that Ms. Olsen failed to exhaust the pension plan’s internal claims process before filing her lawsuit. AIG argued that the Service Center was not the plan administrator, that Ms. Olsen did not submit a “claim” for benefits until October 2023 and that the December 2023 letter from AIG was an initial denial from which she should have appealed. We argued that the Service Center was a functional fiduciary acting on behalf of the plan administrator, that Ms. Olsen was told that her claim for the higher benefit amount was denied, that she was invited to appeal that decision which she did in October 2023 and that AIG’s December 2023 letter was a final denial.

Judge Fitzgerald recognized that exhaustion of internal claims procedures prior to filing suit is generally required under Ninth Circuit law. However, he held that dismissal was not warranted at this stage of the litigation because the parties disputed whether Ms. Olsen properly exhausted her claim for benefits.

AIG also argued that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty should be dismissed because it was also subject to the pension plan’s claims procedures and was not exhausted. We argued that AIG’s position was in direct opposition to established Ninth Circuit law which has consistently held that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA is not subject to a plan’s exhaustion requirement. We cited Chuck v. Hewlett Packard Co., 455 F.3d 1026, 1035 (9th Cir. 2006), among other cases, which held that “exhaustion of internal dispute procedures is not required where the issue is whether a violation of the terms or provisions of the [ERISA] statute has occurred.” Judge Fitzgerald agreed stating “Plaintiff has the better argument” and regardless of the pension plan’s procedures, “the Ninth Circuit has held that exhaustion is not required for statutory breach of fiduciary duty claims.”

AIG next argued that the breach of fiduciary duty claim should be dismissed because it was “impermissibly duplicative of her claim for benefits” in that the remedies under both claims flowed from the same act, the denial of the higher benefit amount. We argued that the holding in Moyle v. Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan, 823 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2016) was controlling. In Moyle the plaintiff brought a similar claim regarding past service credits under a pension plan as well as a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The Ninth Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2016) and held that a plaintiff could seek relief under both claims as long as the plaintiff did not receive a double recovery. Judge Fitzgerald again agreed with our argument.

Lastly, AIG argued that Ms. Olsen “disguise[d] her claim for benefits as a fiduciary claim by making several conclusory and unsupported allegations.” We argued that the fiduciary duty claim was based not on the denial of the higher benefit amount, but on AIG’s misrepresentations that were reaffirmed to Ms. Olsen over the course of several years. Judge Fitzgerald agreed and concluded that those allegations were sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
Judge Fitzgerald’s order denying AIG’s motion to dismiss is significant because it reaffirms the Ninth Circuit’s prior holdings that a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA is not subject to a pension plan’s internal claims procedures, and that a plaintiff may bring both a claim for benefits and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA so long as she does not receive a double recovery.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides standards for private employer-provided group insurance plans, including disability, life, accidental death and dismemberment, pension and health insurance plans. One of ERISA’s critical protections is its provision of a federal cause of action for participants and beneficiaries to recover benefits due under a plan.

Understanding ERISA Claims and Insurer Obligations

ERISA imposes fiduciary duties on plan administrators and insurers – they are required to act in the best interests of plan participants. This includes:

Providing complete and accurate information: Insurers must ensure that plan participants receive necessary documentation, such as Summary Plan Descriptions (SPDs) and explanations of benefits.
Processing claims promptly and fairly: Insurers must adhere to established timelines for processing claims and appeals, providing clear and detailed reasons for any denials.
Upholding fiduciary duties: Insurers must act with the utmost care, skill, prudence, and diligence when managing plan assets and handling claims.

Unfortunately, insurers often mishandle ERISA claims, which can cause financial hardship because of a claim denial or by an undue delay of benefits. Insurers can mishandle claims in many ways:

Disability insurers cherry-picking claimants’ medical records and intentionally interpreting them in a way that is unfavorable to their claims.
Insurers giving more credence to medical reviewers than to the claimants’ own treating doctors. Insurers will pay “independent” peer review specialists, or “paper review” doctors and nurses who never interact directly with the claimants or their treating physicians and provide opinions based on nothing more than reviewing the medical records available to them.
Insurers sometimes mailing time-sensitive notices to the wrong address or not mail notices at all, then lapsing a life insurance policy based on failure to pay a premium or provide information within a certain time.
Insurers improperly relying on exclusions or other policy provisions in a manner not tenable under existing law or not consistent with the applicable facts.

When insurers fail to meet these obligations, plan participants can seek recourse through the process set forth by ERISA:

Administrative Appeals

Step 1: Review the Denial Letter

When an ERISA claim is denied, the insurer must provide a written denial letter detailing the specific reasons for the denial, referencing the plan provisions on which the denial is based, explaining the procedure for appealing the decision and giving a date by which the appeal must be filed. This letter is crucial as it outlines the grounds for the denial and the steps the participant must take to challenge it. To submit an effective appeal, you must first know what issues or items the appeal should address.

Step 2: File an Appeal

ERISA mandates that plans establish a fair and reasonable process for participants to appeal denied claims. You typically have 180 days from the date of receipt of the denial letter to file an appeal. The appeal must be thorough and include:

A detailed explanation of why the denial is incorrect: This should address the reasons provided in the denial letter and cite relevant plan provisions and medical evidence.
Supporting documentation: Include all relevant medical records, expert opinions, personal statements and any additional evidence that supports the claim.

Step 3: Await the Decision

The insurer is required to review the appeal and issue a decision within a specified timeframe. For a disability claim, for example, the decision must be issued within 45 days, unless the insurer has a legitimate need for more time, in which case it can take up to 45 more days as long as it provides written notice of its need for more time (“special circumstances”) before the first 45-day deadline. If the appeal is denied, the insurer must provide a detailed explanation of the reasons for the denial and notify the participant of their right to file a lawsuit in federal court under ERISA.

Filing a Lawsuit in Federal Court

Once your appeal is denied, you have exhausted your administrative remedies and can file a lawsuit in federal court. ERISA grants federal courts jurisdiction over these claims, though some plans allow claimants the option of filing suit in state court.

Damages Available Under ERISA

ERISA provides for only specific, limited damages:

Recovery of benefits: You can seek payment of the benefits due under the plan.
Statutory penalties: For particular violations, such as failure to provide requested plan documents, you can seek statutory penalties.
Attorney’s fees and costs: ERISA allows you to recover attorney’s fees and costs by making a motion for the court to order the insurer to pay your fees and costs. The court does not automatically award fees and costs – it requires a demonstration of some success on the merits of the case, and the court has broad discretion in whether to award fees and costs and if so, how much to award.

Evidence and Administrative Record

ERISA cases are often decided de novo, meaning that the court essentially steps into the insurer’s role of reviewing the information included in your initial claim, the insurer’s claim file, and your appeal and decides whether a claim denial was appropriate without any deference to the claim administrator’s decision. The administrative record is complete when the insurer issues its final determination on your appeal, and you will only be able to admit additional evidence that goes outside the administrative record in limited circumstances. For example, if you had a claim for Social Security Disability Income benefits pending at the time the insurer denied your appeal, then the Social Security Administration later issues a decision on your SSDI claim, the court may use discretion to admit the SSA decision into evidence.

In cases that are not decided de novo, the court determines whether the insurer’s decision was an abuse of discretion. This standard of review is highly deferential to the insurer, meaning the court will find in the insurer’s favor as long as it determines that the insurer had at least some reasonable basis for denying your claim. For example, it is an abuse of discretion for an insurer to purposely exclude important evidence, like MRI or x-ray imaging when providing records to an independent review specialist. However, this standard of review is more difficult for ERISA plan participants and their beneficiaries as insurers or employers have broad discretion in deciding claims.

Additional Remedies and Considerations

Extra-Judicial Complaints: You can file a complaint with certain administrative agencies. For example, you can submit a complaint to the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), which oversees ERISA compliance. While the EBSA does not represent individual participants, it can investigate potential violations and take enforcement action against insurers. Additionally, you may submit a complaint to the appropriate state agency that oversees insurance matters, for example, the California Department of Insurance.
State Law Claims: ERISA generally preempts state law claims related to employee benefit plans. However, you may still be able to pursue state law claims in certain limited situations. You can also pursue recourse in state court if your policy is exempt from ERISA. For example, group insurance plans provided by religious and government organizations and self-funded policies are typically not governed by ERISA.

Conclusion

When your insurer or employer mishandles your ERISA claim, you are not without recourse. By understanding the steps involved in filing administrative appeals, pursuing litigation in federal court, and exploring additional remedies, you can protect your rights and secure the benefits you are entitled to. Given the complexities of ERISA, seeking legal counsel experienced in ERISA litigation can significantly enhance the likelihood of a successful outcome. If your ERISA claim has been denied or you are considering submitting a claim, reach out to the experienced ERISA attorneys at the McKennon Law Group PC for a free consultation.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides protection for members of group benefit plans offered by private employers. ERISA is designed to help ensure that employees receive the benefits they are entitled to and that these plans are properly managed. The relationship between the employer, the employee, and the plan is often arranged in such a way that the employer acts as an intermediary between the employee and the plan. In doing so, employers have certain obligations to their employees who are plan members or prospective plan members. Understanding these obligations can be crucial in being sure that any issue you may have as a group member is handled correctly. Following are some important examples of employer obligations under ERISA.

Types of Policies

Types of plans and policies governed by ERISA can include disability insurance, health insurance, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, and pension plans. Employers’ obligations under ERISA may vary depending on the type of policy at issue, but employers generally have a fiduciary duty to ensure that they act in your best interest. This can mean your employer is obligated to facilitate your enrollment in the plan, including being sure that you have all the proper documentation and that you properly complete the application process. If you make a claim for, say, disability benefits, and the insurance company denies your claim on the basis that you were not covered by the policy at the time you became disabled because you had not properly submitted a part of the application, you may be able to pursue your disability benefits from your employer as well as the insurance company.

Plan Documentation and Disclosure

Employers must provide clear and comprehensive documentation about the insurance plan, including the terms and conditions of the policy and any material changes made to those terms and conditions. Once you enroll in your plan, you are entitled to these. Lacking such information can easily cause issues like missing a deadline or not providing information to the insurance company in the proper way. Should such circumstances lead to an adverse decision on your claim, your employer may be held liable for failing to provide you with this information.

Fiduciary Responsibilities

Employers must act in the best interest of the plan participants and beneficiaries. This includes:

Duty of Loyalty: Employers must act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries, with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits.
Duty of Prudence: Employers are obligated to act with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence required to properly facilitate employees’ needs in the context of the plan.
Duty to Follow Plan Documents: Employers must administer an ERISA plan in accordance with its governing documents.

Claims and Appeals Process

ERISA mandates that disability insurance plans have a fair and transparent process for participants to claim benefits:

Claims Procedures: Employers must provide a written explanation of the procedures for filing a claim for benefits. This includes the timeframes for making a decision and the process for appealing a denied claim.
Appeals Process: If a claim is denied, participants must be given the opportunity to appeal the decision. The plan must provide a clear explanation of the reasons for the denial and the steps for submitting an appeal. ERISA also requires that appeals be handled by someone different from the individual who made the initial denial decision. As with enrollment, the employer has a fiduciary duty to facilitate this process for the employee.

Steps to Hold an Employer Liable For ERISA Violations

Internal Review and Documentation:
- Gather Evidence: Collect all relevant documents, including any plan documents, claims forms, denial letters, and any correspondence with the employer or plan administrator.
- Review Plan Procedures: Understand the plan’s claims and appeals procedures outlined in the plan documents.

File an Internal Appeal:

- Follow Plan Procedures: Submit a written appeal according to the plan’s provisions. Be sure to meet any deadlines and provide all necessary supporting documentation.
- Maintain Records: Keep copies of all submitted documents and any responses received from your employer and/or the plan administrator.

Seek Legal Action:

- Consult an ERISA Attorney: If an internal appeal does not resolve the issue, consult with an attorney who specializes in ERISA law.
- File a Lawsuit: An employee has the right to file a lawsuit against his employer in federal court for improperly denying benefits due under the plan, breaches of fiduciary duty, and other ERISA violations. Employers often act as a liaison between employees and the insurance company and/or plan administrator; therefore, should your employer fail to properly facilitate administration of your claim or coverage, it may be necessary to take legal action against your employer as well as the insurance company and/or plan administrator.

Legal Remedies and Outcomes

Employees who successfully prove ERISA violations can obtain various remedies, including:

Recovery of Benefits: Receiving the benefits that were wrongfully denied.
Restoration of Plan Assets: In cases of fiduciary breaches, courts can order fiduciaries to restore losses to the plan.
Injunctive Relief: Courts can order employers to comply with ERISA requirements and correct plan practices.
Monetary Damages and Penalties: Employers may be required to pay penalties for certain violations, such as failure to provide required documents.
Attorney’s Fees: Achieving some degree of success on the merits of your case in federal court presents the opportunity to recover some or all of your attorney’s fees from defendants, including your employer.

Conclusion

ERISA provides robust protections for employees’ benefit plans, but enforcement relies heavily on employees knowing their rights and taking action when violations occur. By understanding the steps to hold employers accountable, employees can ensure their benefits are protected and that employers adhere to ERISA’s stringent standards. If you think your employer may be violating its ERISA obligations, reach out to the experienced ERISA attorneys at the McKennon Law Group PC for a free consultation today at (949) 504-5381.

What Is a Summary Plan Description and Why Does it Matter?

If you participate in employer-sponsored health insurance, retirement plans, or pension plans, the plan’s administrator is required to provide a summary of the plan. This summary plan description, or SPD, is a critical piece of paperwork for you as the beneficiary of the plan. It outlines important information, including what is included in the plan and what your ERISA rights are.

The summary document is usually different from the actual plan documents, although it can be made part of the plan.

What Is a Summary Plan Description?

The summary plan description is a documentation requirement of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, known as ERISA. Under ERISA, administrators of covered employer-sponsored health, pension, and retirement plans must provide participants with an SPD that summarizes the important provisions of the plan documents. This information is typically considered to be the basic data you need to understand and manage your benefits.

Who Gets a Summary Plan Description?

Under ERISA, employees (i.e., the plan participants) must receive a summary plan description when they become eligible for benefits.

Typically, employers or administrators are required to provide the document to employees or plan participants by a certain deadline, such as within 90 days of an employee becoming covered. Administrators are the persons or entities who manage the plan and may include human resources or third-party businesses contracted by the employer.

Employees should also receive a new or updated summary plan description promptly if the plan changes. Changes can be documented in a revised SPD or in what is called a summary of material modifications.

What Information Is Included in Your Summary Plan Description?

Summary plan descriptions must include information such as:

What the plan provides. These are the benefits you have access to under the plan. In the case of health insurance, the summary plan description may include some basic listing of covered expenses, for example.
How the plan operates. The SPD provides a basic overview of how the plan is managed and works, though this is not meant to be a detailed operating document.
When employees can participate in the plan. The SPD should provide a concise look at when employees become eligible for the plan.
A description of claims processes. Employees can turn to their SPD to get information about how they can file a claim to receive benefits under the plan.
A description of what rights employees have under the plan. The summary should include an accessible explanation of a plan participant’s ERISA rights and any other rights they or their beneficiaries have under the plan.
What responsibilities do employees have concerning the plan. This will describe a plan participant’s duties under the plan, such as whether he or she has to cover a percentage of premiums or what information you must provide to their employer to remain covered.

Summary Plan Description versus Actual Plan Documents

The point of the SPD is to provide employees and other plan participants with information about their benefits and how the plan works.

Because of this, SPDs should be written in language that is easy for plan participants to understand and does not include a lot of very complex legal, insurance, or business jargon. The summary plan description should also take a holistic look at the plan and provide everything an employee needs to make basic decisions about the plan. An SPD is typically not part of an ERISA plan and if there is a discrepancy between the SPD and a plan document, the latter will control.

In contrast, the plan document is used by the employer and administrators to manage the plan. It acts as a legally binding type of contract that sets forth the provisions of the plan. This document is typically much longer than the SPD and may include more legal and technical information. These documents are not typically provided as reference documents for employees, but they will be helpful to an attorney if a plan participant or beneficiary is involved in a case involving a failure of an employer or administrator to uphold your ERISA rights or a disability, pension or life insurance claim denial.

Finally, while it is uncommon, the SPD can be an ERISA plan document if the plan itself states that it is. In that case, it will be treated as being part and parcel of the plan.

What If Your ERISA Plan Administrator Does Not Issue Required Documents?

Plan administrators are legally obligated under ERISA to provide the summary plan description to you in a timely manner. They are also usually required to issue other periodic documents, such as a summary of benefits and coverage. If you do not understand how your plan works and do not have access to these types of documents, reach out to human resources department or plan administrators and ask about the provision of the plan or the SPD.

When To Call an ERISA Attorney

If you feel that your plan administrator or employer is not providing you with required information or you suspect there are any issues with your plan or claims process (such as a claim denial), you should work with an experienced ERISA attorney. An ERISA lawyer can help you understand what your rights are under the law and how you can advocate for them in the context of your plan or claim.

Claims administrators such as insurance companies often do not act in good faith and do not act in the interest of policyholders/plan participants. They frequently forget that the underlying purpose of ERISA is to protect the interests of participants and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans.

The team at McKennon Law Group PC battles insurance companies on your behalf to help ensure you get the benefits you deserve. Contact us at 949-504-5381 if you are facing an ERISA matter you need assistance with.

If you have insurance coverage through an employer-sponsored benefit plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), it can be vital for you to understand the timing and deadlines related to the claims process. ERISA sets forth specific guidelines that insurers and administrators must adhere to when processing claims and appeals. One critical aspect of these guidelines is the timeframe within which the insurer or administrator must provide a decision on appeal. Failure to adhere to these deadlines can have significant implications for both the insurer and the claimant.

The ERISA Appeals Process

Pursuant to the ERISA regulations, you have the right to appeal the denial of your claim for benefits, and in fact ERISA requires that you go through the appeals process and exhaust your administrative remedies prior to suing the insurer or administrator. This appeals process is typically the first step in seeking review of an adverse benefit determination, such as a denial of coverage for medical treatment or disability benefits.

When you submit an appeal, the insurer or plan administrator must review the appeal and issue a decision within a specified time. For non-urgent health insurance claims, ERISA regulations generally require the administrator to make a decision within 30 days after receiving the claim. However, this period can be extended by an additional 15 days if the administrator notifies the claimant in writing, explaining the need for the extension before the initial 30-day period ends. For life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment claims (“AD&D”), the claims administrator must make an initial decision on a life or AD&D insurance claim within 90 days after receiving the claim. This period can be extended by an additional 90 days if the administrator notifies the claimant in writing before the initial 90-day period expires, explaining the need for the extension and providing the date by which a decision is expected.

For disability claims, the appeal decision deadline is 45 days from the date the appeal is received, but the insurer or administrator can take up to an additional 45 days if they demonstrate that failing to meet the first 45-day deadline is warranted due to “special circumstances.” For example, the insurer or plan administrator will review your medical records in deciding your claim, and these reviews typically consist of having the records reviewed by third parties who provide reports, providing you an opportunity to respond to any inquiries made by these reviewers and their reports, and obtaining recent or ongoing medical records. Courts have held that because such events are typical in disability claim reviews, failing to meet an appeal decision deadline due to waiting for updated medical records, or for you to respond to a third-party report, for example, do not constitute special circumstances that justify missing the deadline.

Consequences of Missing the Deadline

A vital regulation of ERISA is that if an insurer fails to render a decision on your appeal within the appropriate period (or any extended period that may apply), you may consider your appeal denied and therefore, your administrative remedies exhausted. The significance of this rule is two-fold: First, it allows you to continue moving toward an ultimate conclusion, barring the insurer from indefinitely delaying its decision and holding you in limbo. Second, it can impact the evidence that will come into play when you sue the insurer and/or administrator. If the insurer or administrator misses the 45-day deadline for an appeal decision for disability claims without notifying you before the deadline of special circumstances justifying a delay, the claim will be deemed denied and you may consider your administrative remedies exhausted as of the 45-day deadline date. This allows you to properly file suit in federal court any time after that date, meaning that your claim is no longer on the insurer or administrator’s schedule, but on the court’s schedule. Additionally, the court’s review is limited to the administrative record at the time of its final decision, so the insurer or administrator may be unable to develop additional evidence to support its denial of your claim. In addition, the de novo standard of review would apply even if the abuse of discretion standard would have otherwise applied.

For example, the insurer may contract with an independent medical expert to provide a report based on your medical records. If the insurer misses the deadline for your appeal decision and you sue to recover your benefits, the administrative record in court will consist of the evidence available to the insurer at the time of the deadline. Thus, if the insurer had not yet provided you with that independent expert’s report, that report will not become part of the administrative record without permission from the court. The result could be that the insurer’s primary piece of evidence to support its denial of your claim is not considered by the court, thereby increasing your chances of a successful outcome.

How to Address a Missed Deadline

If your insurer or plan administrator misses the deadline to provide you with a decision on your appeal, you should take proactive steps to protect your rights:

Documentation: Keep detailed records of all communications with the insurer or administrator regarding the appeal. This includes the date the appeal was submitted, any acknowledgments received, and subsequent follow-ups.
Communication with the plan administrator: write a letter to the plan administrator and to the claim administrator confirming that it is your position that appeal deadline has passed without an appropriate decision and detail the consequences of their failure to comply with the ERISA deadlines.
Consultation with Legal Counsel: Consider consulting with an attorney who specializes in ERISA claims. Legal professionals can provide guidance on navigating the appeals process and ensuring compliance with all procedural requirements.
Timely Action: If the deadline passes without a decision, promptly notify the insurer or administrator in writing that you consider your administrative remedies exhausted. This notification should be clear and concise, documenting the failure to decide within the required timeframe.

Once your administrative remedies are considered exhausted due to the insurer’s or administrator’s failure to decide within the ERISA deadline, you may file a lawsuit to have a federal court review the administrative record and provide a decision on your claim.

Conclusion

Timely resolution of appeals under ERISA is crucial for both insurers and claimants. Insurers and administrators must adhere to strict deadlines when reviewing appeals to avoid the claimant considering their administrative remedies exhausted. For claimants, understanding these deadlines and knowing their rights under ERISA is essential for navigating the appeals process effectively. By being aware of these regulations and taking proactive steps when necessary, you can protect your rights to challenge benefit denials obtain the benefits to which you are entitled under your policy.

If your ERISA claim has been denied or you have not received a timely decision, reach out to the experienced ERISA attorneys at McKennon Law Group PC at 949-504-5381 for a consultation at no charge.

Group health and disability plans governed by ERISA have designated fiduciaries who oversee the plan’s administrative requirements. Fiduciaries are required by law to fully and fairly consider claims and to provide specific reasons for claim denials. Weaver v. Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., 990 F.2d 154, 158 (4th Cir. 1993). In assessing claims, plan fiduciaries are required to act with an ‘”eye single” to the employee’s interests, and “cannot cherry-pick the best evidence in an employee’s file to support its desired conclusion.” Ramirez v. Liberty Life Assurance Co. of Bos., No. 3:18-CV-00012-RJC, 2019 WL 469930, at *10 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2019). They are also required to strictly follow ERISA regulations. If they do not, a court may impose a de novo standard of review even though an abuse of discretion review standard would have otherwise applied.

Under 29 C.F.R. Section 2560.503-1(i)(3)(i), a claim administrator has 45 days after a claimant files an appeal and this can only be extended for an additional 45 days in “special circumstances.” “If a claim administrator does not comply with the relevant deadlines, the claimant is deemed to have exhausted her administrative remedies and can file suit in federal court.” Rupprecht v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 623 F.Supp.3d 683, 691 (E.D. Va. 2022).

On April 10, 2024, in the matter of Wonsang v. Reliance Insurance Company, 2024 WL 1559292 (E.D. Virginia 2024), The court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Rebecca Wonsang (“Wonsang”), ruling that she was eligible to continue receiving long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits as well as for 26 months of back pay-benefits under a group disability policy governed by ERISA. The insurer, Reliance Standard Insurance Company (“Reliance”), had denied her claim for continued LTD benefits under its policy’s “any occupation” provision based upon its assertion that she had presented insufficient medical evidence to support her claim.

The court first had to address the standard of review. The court determined that by belatedly self-imposing a requirement for an IME, and thereby missing the 45-day deadline to decide Wonsang’s claim, it violated the applicable ERISA regulations. The court found that by missing this deadline, a de novo standard of review applied. The court then addressed the merits of Reliance’s “any occupation” denial. The court determined that Reliance simply failed to satisfy its fiduciary duty as mandated under ERISA to consider Wonsang’s claim fully and provide specific reasons for its denial of her claim. Wonsang stopped work due to alleged symptoms of arthralgia, back pain, neck pain from cervical herniated discs, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, Epstein Barre virus, IBS, and migraines. Id. at 2. Although she provided Reliance with substantial medical evidence from physicians who examined her symptoms, Reliance relied “almost exclusively on clinical staff members’ review[s] of Wonsang’s file rather than medical evidence by treating or examining providers,” and improperly denied her claim. Id. at 10.

The court rejected Reliance’s “minimalist approach in terms of its process for denying Wonsang’s benefits,” and ruled that Reliance improperly “emphasized isolated evidence to buttress its conclusions, while ignoring contradicting evidence,” when it denied Wonsang’s claim. Id. at 10-12. Reliance also attempted to argue that it was not obligated to accept a claimant’s subjective symptoms in assessing a claim. The court swiftly rejected this argument and reiterated that the law requires plan fiduciaries to not only consider claimants’ subjective symptoms but to consider their medication regimens as well in assessing benefit claims under ERISA. Id. at 12.

This decision highlights the importance of plan fiduciaries strictly following the time requirements of ERISA and making sure that they conduct a full and fair review of disability claims.