California District Court Rules That a Treating Physician’s Observations are “More Persuasive” Than a Paper Reviewer’s Contrary Opinions

When reviewing a claim for disability insurance, insurers and other claim administrators often rely on the opinions of paid physicians to support their improper denial decisions.  For example, a disability insurance company will hire a doctor to conduct a “paper review” – that is, reviewing an insured’s medical records, without actually examining the insured – and then offer an opinion on the insured’s ability to return to work.  If the “paper reviewer” opines that the insured is capable of returning to work, the insurance company will then rely on that opinion to deny the claim for benefits; even if the insured’s own treating physicians repeatedly state that the insured is disabled.  However, in Oldoerp v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9847, 2014 WL 294641 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014), the court held that with a psychological disability, a treating mental health professional’s observations are “more persuasive” than a paper reviewer’s opinion.  This opinon is beneficial for policyholder/insureds, espeically in ERISA cases, because insurers will have a harder time using the opinions of paid, so-called “experts” who do not examine the insured to support their improper claim decisions.

In 2007, Kerilei Oldoerp was forced to stop working after experiencing a host of symptoms, including pain, fatigue and depression.  Eventually, Oldoerp was diagnosed with a variety of conditions, including depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, generalized anxiety, panic disorder and Bartonella.  Oldoerp made a claim for short-term disability (“STD”) benefits, and then long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits.  MetLife, the claim administrator, approved her STD claim, and also paid her LTD benefits for one month before denying the claim, and forcing Oldoerp to bring an ERISA lawsuit to recover the disability benefits to which she was rightfully entitled.

In Oldoerp, the District Court originally upheld MetLife’s claim decision, ruling that its decision to deny benefits was not an abuse of discretion.  However, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit, following CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011), overturned that ruling because the discretionary language was contained in a summary plan description, but not the acutal plan.  On remand, applying the de novo standard of review, the district court ruled in Oldoerp’s favor, finding that “Oldoerp, more likely than not, was disabled under the plan’s[IC1]  terms beginning in August 2007,” and that her disability persisted after February 13, 2008, the date MetLife determined she was capable of returning to work.

In reaching this ruling, the District Court reviewed the medical evidence in the Administrative Record, as well as Oldoerp’s Social Security Disability Insurance file, after finding that it was “necessary . . . for an adequate de novo review.”  First, noting that MetLife had previously approved Oldoerp’s LTD claim, in order to find that Oldoerp was not longer disabled, “one would expect the [evidence] to show an improvement, not [simply] a lack of degeneration.”  However, the record did not reveal that Oldoerp’s condition improved.  Rather, the records of Dr. Becky Simonelic, a psychologist who “treated Oldoerp longer and more often than any other medical professional in the record,” showed that Oldoerp’s condition had actually “deteriorated without significant improvement.”

In defending the denial decision, MetLife relied on psychologist Marcus J. Goldman, its paid physician who did not examine Oldoerp, but, after conducting a “paper review” opined that she failed to demonstrate psychiatric functional limitations after November 2007.  The Court found Dr. Goldman’s conclusions to be “minimally persuasive.”  First, while Dr. Goldman criticized the “subjective evidence” used to support Oldoerp’s disablity, the Court noted that an insured is “entitled to rely on credible subjective evidence in support of her claim,” especially when “the record lacks persuasive objective evidence to rebut the credible evidence” supporting the disability.  In addition, the court noted that while Dr. Simonelic “consistently observed Oldoerp throughout the pendency of her claim, Goldman never examined Oldoerp,” and explained that “[w]hile an ERISA plan administrator need not provide in-person medical evaluations of its claimants, Simonelic’s in-person observations are more persuasive than Goldman’s paper review.”  The Court also noted that “in-person examinations can prove more conducive to an accurate assessment of a claimant’s condition.”

Based on Dr. Simonelic’s opinions, and the other medical evidence in the record, the Court ruled that Oldoerp was entitled to a reinstatement of her LTD benefits.  This opinion is very good for insureds.  In addition, to holding that the opinions of a doctor who only conducted a “paper review” was only minimally persuasive in the face of a contradictory opinion by a treating physician, the Court also ruled that a Social Secuity Disability Insurance file was necessary for a full de novo review (following Mongeluzo v. Baxter Travenol Long Term Disability Ben.[IC2]  Plan, 46 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 1995)) and that a disability claim can be supported by subjective evidence, especially where there is no contrary objective evidence.

Get the Answers and Assistance You Need

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
McKennon Law Group Logo

Address: 20321 SW Birch St. Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92660

Phone: 800-682-4137

We also have offices in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap