McKennon Law Group, Author at McKennon Law Group

Filing for Social Security Disability Income Benefits and Group Long-Term Disability Benefits

If you become ill or injured and experience a disability that keeps you from performing your job duties, the financial burden can be great. However, there are options for seeking an income in these situations. One is claiming disability benefits through the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) also known as Social Security Disability Income (“SSDI”). Another is filing a claim with your disability insurer concerning a policy you have through an employer-sponsored group disability insurance plan.

You can file these claims simultaneously to maximize your disability benefits. It is a good idea to understand how SSDI and long-term disability claims may impact each other.

Qualifying for SSDI versus Group Long-Term Disability Claims

SSDI is a Social Security benefit. To qualify for this benefit, you must have earned enough work credits in jobs that qualify as work under the SSA. You can earn up to four credits a year and usually need 40 total credits to qualify for this benefit. Half of those credits must have been earned 10 years before your claim.

The SSA also has policies regarding a qualifying disability. SSA only pays SSDI claims related to total disability, and the definitions are fairly stringent.

A group long-term disability claim on the other hand is one that you file with an employer-sponsored short-term or long-term group disability policy. Typically, to qualify for these benefits, you must be a policyholder who was actively working full-time and meet the definition of disability under the insurance plan. In many cases, long-term disability insurance plans have disability requirements that are less strict than those of the SSA. For example, most group long-term disability policies pay disability benefits in the first two years of disability if you are unable to perform the substantial duties of your occupation. To qualify for SSDI, you must be unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity due to a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death. This means you cannot perform your previous work and your condition must prevent you from adjusting to other forms of work that exist in significant numbers in the national economy.

If Your SSI Disability Application Is Denied, Does It Impact Your Group Long-Term Disability Claim?

Generally, a denial by the SSA does not negatively impact a claim with your long-term disability insurance plan. This is because the SSA has requirements for SSDI that may not be relevant to your insurance plan.

For example, consider a hypothetical situation wherein someone has returned to the workforce after a seven-year hiatus. That person may not have the work credits necessary to qualify for SSDI. However, if they have purchased an ERISA disability insurance policy through their employer, their lack of work credits would not be relevant to payouts under that plan.

If You Get SSDI, Can It Impact Your Claim For Group Long-Term Disability Benefits?

Conversely, if you are successful in receiving an award of SSDI benefits, this can have a significant impact on your long-term disability claim—particularly if you have to bring the matter to court.

Many long-term disability plans contain clauses that allow the disability insurer or plan administrator to reduce benefits dollar-for-dollar by amounts paid out by the SSA for SSDI benefits. This means that if you qualify for SSDI benefits, it will likely reduce, dollar-for-dollar, how much you are paid under your long-term disability policy. It is important to review your long-term disability policy to determine what types of offsets are allowed.

Moreover, if the SSA approves your claim for SSDI benefits, you may be able to buttress your arguments to a court or to a disability insurer, particularly if there is a finding in your favor by an administrative law judge. This is because the SSA has a very strict definition of disability and only pays benefits when it deems you are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity. It is likely that if you meet the SSA requirements for a disability benefit that you also meet the requirements for a claim under a long-term disability insurance policy, especially where the standard is disability from your “own occupation.”

Courts may favorably consider an award of SSDI benefits as part of the evidence proving your disability when an insurance company has wrongly denied your claim under a long-term disability insurance policy. In some of these cases, the courts have pointed to the existence of an award of SSDI benefits as proof of disability and ruled against the insurance company that wrongfully denied your claim.

However, an award of SSDI benefits does not automatically mean you will win any court battle against your disability insurance company. The courts consider SSDI benefits as a material fact within the context of all other facts in the case.

Hire an Long-Term Disability Insurance Attorney to Help With Your Case

Ultimately, the main takeaway here is that disability insurance claims can be complex. Add in the relationship between SSDI benefits and your long-term disability benefits, and the situation becomes even more complex. It often is a good idea to work with an experienced legal team when dealing with these claims, as a disability insurance lawyer helps you understand your options and what outcomes to expect.

A disability lawyer also works on your side and to support your interests, which is not what you can expect from your insurance company. Unfortunately, insurance companies have other stakeholders to appease, including executive leadership and shareholders. That means there is always a balancing act between paying claims and addressing cost-saving measures that benefit the business’s bottom line and the dividends paid to shareholders.

If your insurance company has arbitrarily denied your claim, consider hiring an experienced legal team to help you fight for the benefits you are entitled to. Contact McKennon Law Group PC to get a free consultation.

Navigating the complexities of an ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) disability claim can be daunting, especially when your health and financial stability are on the line. One of the most critical players in the process of obtaining disability benefits under an ERISA policy is your healthcare provider. Understanding the role your healthcare providers play in your ERISA disability claim can have a dramatic impact on the outcome of your claim.

The Importance of Medical Evidence

Your medical evidence will be critical to substantiate your disability claim. Your healthcare providers’ documentation is pivotal in proving that your condition meets the criteria outlined in your disability policy. This evidence includes detailed medical records, test results, treatment histories, and ongoing health assessments. You must be able to show that your medical conditions cause restrictions and limitations that result in your inability to perform the substantial duties of your occupation or any occupation for which you are qualified by education, experience and training.

Detailed Medical Documentation

Your healthcare provider’s medical documentation must be comprehensive and precise. It should detail your diagnosis, the severity of your symptoms, treatment plans, and how your condition affects your ability to work. Insurers scrutinize these records to determine if your condition is as serious as you claim it is. Incomplete or vague documentation can lead to claim denials. Even something as minor as your healthcare provider making a handwritten note that is illegible or states information contrary to your assertions or claim can lead the insurance company to deny your claim.

Regular and Consistent Treatment

Consistency in treatment is another crucial aspect of your ERISA disability claim. Regular visits to your healthcare provider demonstrate that your condition is severe and ongoing. It also shows that you are actively seeking treatment and following medical advice. Insurers may view gaps in treatment or missed appointments as evidence that your condition is not as serious as you claim and use these things as justification for denying your claim.

Functional Capacity Evaluations

A significant part of your healthcare provider’s role involves conducting or referring you for functional capacity evaluations (FCEs). These evaluations assess your physical and mental capabilities and limitations. The results provide objective and subjective evidence about what activities you can and cannot perform, which is crucial for determining your ability to work. Your healthcare provider’s interpretation and endorsement of these evaluations carry substantial weight in your claim.

Detailed Letters and Reports

Your healthcare provider can also provide detailed “certification” letters and reports to support your claim. These documents, used to certify to the insurance company that you are disabled, should outline your medical history, current condition, prognosis, and how your disability prevents you from performing your job duties. A well-crafted letter from your healthcare provider, clearly connecting your medical condition to your inability to work, can be instrumental in securing your disability benefits.

Coordinating with Other Healthcare Providers

If you are seeing multiple healthcare providers, it is essential that your primary healthcare provider coordinates with them to ensure consistency in your medical records. Discrepancies between different providers’ notes can undermine your claim and lead to a denial. Consistent and corroborative reports from all your healthcare providers strengthen your case by presenting a unified picture of your disability.

Responding to Insurer Requests

Throughout the ERISA disability claims process, insurers may request additional information or clarification about your medical condition. Your healthcare provider must respond promptly and thoroughly to these requests. Delays or incomplete responses can result in claim denials or unnecessary delays in getting a decision or your benefits.

Expect the Insurer to Downplay Your Medical Evidence

Insurers often downplay medical evidence or “cherry pick” specific details from your medical records. They will take these details out of context while overlooking other significant evidence to present an inaccurate picture of your condition in order to justify denying your claim. You should be prepared for this by being familiar with your medical records and how they address your conditions, diagnoses, and symptoms.

Insurers will also utilize peer review or “paper review” specialists, or “independent” healthcare providers, hired by the insurer, to review your medical records and provide an opinion to the insurer as to whether you are able to do your job. Unsurprisingly, these healthcare providers often cherry pick your records and provide opinions that are overwhelming favorable to the insurer. Your healthcare provider can work with you to respond to unfavorable conclusions in paper review reports.

Preparing for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs)

Insurers often require claimants to undergo independent medical examinations (IMEs) with physicians that they choose. While these physicians are supposed to be impartial, they are hired and paid by the insurance company, which can create a conflict of interest. Your healthcare provider can help you prepare for these exams by ensuring you understand what to expect and by providing you with a comprehensive summary of your medical condition to present during the IME.

The Appeals Process

If your initial claim is denied, your healthcare provider’s role becomes even more critical during the appeals process. He or she may need to provide additional evidence or write more detailed reports on

your behalf. An experienced and supportive healthcare provider can be a valuable ally during this challenging phase.

Communicating with Your Healthcare provider

Effective communication with your healthcare provider is essential. Keep your healthcare provider informed about your symptoms, how they affect your daily life, and any changes in your condition. Be honest and detailed during your consultations and ensure your healthcare provider understands the importance of detailed and accurate medical records for your disability claim.

Understanding the role your healthcare provider plays in your ERISA disability claim is essential for navigating the complexities of the process and improving your chances of a successful outcome. From providing comprehensive medical documentation to responding to insurer requests and supporting you during appeals, your healthcare provider is a crucial ally. By choosing an experienced healthcare provider, maintaining regular treatment, and ensuring effective communication, you can strengthen your claim and work towards securing the disability benefits you need. If you have any questions about your disability claim or your healthcare provider’s role in your claim, reach out to the experienced attorneys at the McKennon Law Group PC for a free consultation.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) is a federal law designed to protect the interests of employee benefit plan participants and their beneficiaries. While ERISA applies to various types of employer-sponsored benefit plans, its application to self-funded health and disability plans is particularly significant and is not well understood. Understanding how ERISA governs self-funded plans can be vital to ensuring that you can adequately protect the rights to which you are entitled as a plan participant or beneficiary under an ERISA plan.

What is a Self-Funded Plan?

A self-funded (or self-insured) health and disability plan is one in which the employer assumes the financial risk for providing healthcare and disability benefits to its employees. Unlike fully insured plans, where an insurance company underwrites the policy and bears the risk, a self-funded plan means the employer directly pays any benefits. Often, employers will contract with third-party administrators (TPAs) to handle claims processing and administrative duties, but the financial responsibility remains with the employer.

Key ERISA Provisions for Self-Funded Plans

Preemption of State Laws: A prominent feature of ERISA is its preemption clause – as federal law, ERISA, rather than state law, governs employee benefit plans. It also exempts employers from state insurance regulations. This aspect of ERISA benefits self-funded plans by allowing employers to operate with uniform expectations, and therefore higher efficiency, regardless of what state they are in. Because they are not typically considered insurance under state laws, these plans are generally not saved from preemption.
Fiduciary Duties: ERISA imposes stringent fiduciary responsibilities on those who manage and control plan assets. Fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. This includes adhering to prudent management practices, avoiding conflicts of interest, and ensuring that plan assets are used appropriately. For self-funded plans, the employer or designated fiduciaries must be diligent in meeting this duty; when an employer breaches a fiduciary duty owed to an employee, the employee may pursue its damages directly from the employer, as opposed to an insurance company or third party.
Plan Documentation and Reporting: ERISA mandates comprehensive documentation and reporting requirements for self-funded plans. For example, plan participants must be provided with a Summary Plan Description as well as information about any updates or amendments to the plan, and a report of the Plan must be filed every year with the Department of Labor.
Claims and Appeals Procedures: ERISA requires self-funded plans to establish fair and transparent claims and appeals procedures. Plans must give participants a process for filing claims and appealing denied claims. The purpose is to ensure that each claim gets a full and fair review.

Advantages and Drawbacks of Self-Funded Plans under ERISA

Many employers choose self-funded plans based on the advantages they offer under ERISA, including:

Cost Savings: Fully insured plans include factors that employers can avoid by self-funding, like insurance profit margins, risk charges, and administrative costs. This tends to be particularly beneficial to large employers with predictable healthcare expenses.
Plan Customization: Self-funded plans allow employers to obtain coverage that fits their specific needs, including features unavailable in fully insured plans, like wellness programs or disease management initiatives.
Control Over Plan Design: Employers have more control over the terms and conditions of the plan, allowing them to make decisions that best align with their business objectives and employee needs. This includes determining coverage levels, provider networks, and cost-sharing arrangements.
Cash Flow Benefits: Self-funding can save employers substantial money in high insurance premiums, allowing them to put the money they would otherwise spend on premiums to better use.
Preemption of Adverse State Laws: Self-funded plans are typically not governed by state laws that otherwise apply to insured plans.

While self-funded plans offer numerous benefits, they also present challenges that employers must navigate to ensure compliance and effective plan management:

Financial Risk: The main issue with self-funded plans for employers is the assumption of financial risk. Employers must be prepared to cover unexpected high-cost claims, which can be particularly challenging for smaller employers.
Regulatory Compliance: Maintaining compliance with ERISA’s fiduciary duties, reporting requirements, and claims procedures can be complex and challenging. Employers must stay informed about regulatory changes and ensure their plan administration practices meet ERISA’s standards.
Administrative Burden: Managing a self-funded plan requires significant administrative effort. Employers often rely on TPAs for claims processing and plan administration, but they must still oversee these activities to ensure compliance and effective plan operation; self-funded employers may be held liable even when a TPA is at fault for violating a claimant’s rights.

For employers, self-funding a plan may have both benefits and drawbacks. Self-funding allows employers more flexibility with plan design and can help keep premium payments as low as possible. However, self-funding employers also take the risk of having to cover unpredictable and expensive claims. If you or someone you know has brought a claim under a self-funded ERISA plan that you think has been improperly denied, reach out to the McKennon Law Group PC for a consultation at no charge.

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.