ERISA Archives - Page 4 of 54 - McKennon Law Group

District Court Criticizes Insurer For Conducting “Minimalist” ERISA Review and Imposes De Novo Review Standard; Reinstates Claimant’s Long-Term Disability Benefits Under “Any Occupation” Definition of Disability

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.

Preparing for the Future: The Benefits and Drawbacks of Long-Term Care Insurance

Understanding Pros and Cons of Long-Term Care Insurance

Long-term care insurance is coverage designed to help pay for care if and when you need extended assistance performing everyday activities and caring for yourself. You may need such care due to a disability, a chronic illness, or the natural effects of the aging process. Long-term care policies typically cover assisted living, in-home care, or nursing home care.

As you consider the future, you will likely address matters such as life insurance or estate planning. Included in these matters, you should consider whether long-term care insurance coverage is right for you. Understanding the pros and cons of long-term care coverage can help you make an educated decision.

Common Benefits of Long-Term Care Insurance

The benefits you get from long-term care insurance will be at least partly dependent on your own health condition and financial situation, and the type and extent of coverage you buy. Some common benefits are summarized below.

1. Financial Protection

The expenses involved in receiving extended care at home, in an assisted living facility, or in a nursing home can be prohibitively high.

According to Genworth’s Cost of Care Survey, the median cost for a semi-private room in a nursing home in California is over $11,000 per month. Costs for assisted living care in CA average $6,250 per month, and full-time home health aid services can easily cost over $7,000 per month. Obviously, if at least some of these costs are covered by your insurance policy, your savings and assets can be protected from being depleted by these high costs.

2. Ensuring Access to Care

You can protect your access to care in the future with coverage you purchase earlier in life. With the right long-term care coverage, you will be able to afford a broader range of care than would otherwise be available to you without the coverage. However, it is vital to understand that simply purchasing long-term care coverage now does not guarantee you care in the future. Insurance companies are, first and foremost, for-profit businesses focused on their bottom lines. To this end, insurers regularly deny claims for both valid and improper reasons.

Purchasing long-term care coverage now does not mean that the insurance company will not improperly deny your claim when the time comes that you need care.

3. Ability to Customize Your Coverage

Various types of long-term care coverage are available, which can help you find coverage that suits your needs and your budget. However, you must take care to understand exactly what type of coverage you purchase, as well as how extensive the coverage is. Not understanding this can lead to a situation in which you believe you had bought more than enough coverage for your needs only to find out that the coverage available through your policy does not cover anywhere near all your care costs.

4. Relieves Future Burdens on Loved Ones

When people do not adequately prepare for the possibility they will need care in the future, the burden of care may fall to family members.

All too often, people who need care wind up being cared for by family members who likely had not planned on such an arrangement or may not have the capacity to provide the care needed, which can lead to incredibly stressful situations. The right long-term care coverage can alleviate much of the stress and hardship that would otherwise be placed on family members and loved ones who want to be sure you receive the care you need.

Some Potential Drawbacks of Long-Term Care Insurance

Like any insurance, long-term care insurance has its downsides, including the following:

1. Costs

Long-term care premiums can be expensive. Typically, the older you are, the higher the premiums will be, because the likelihood that you will use the coverage increases as you age. Other factors come into play as well. For example, if you have a pre-existing condition, your premiums will likely be substantially more than if you did not have the condition.

2. Policies Are Complex

Long-term care insurance policies are complex and include many exceptions and exclusions. If you are not aware of exactly the type and extent of coverage your policy provides, you may be in for a world of surprise and frustration when you make a claim for long-term care benefits.

3. You May Never Need It

Anytime you purchase an insurance plan, you may be paying for something that you do not end up needing to use. Purchasing insurance coverage is inherently a gamble. It is important to balance the cost of the plan with factors such as the likelihood you may need coverage, the peace of mind the plan provides, and the potentially catastrophic financial situation you might find yourself in without coverage.

4. Potential Need for Medical Qualification

Depending on your age and the type of plan you purchase, you may need to go through a medical qualification when you apply for the policy.

This could simply require answering some questions, though some insurance companies might also require a medical record review or a physical examination. In such a case, you may find that your options for long-term care coverage are more expensive or somewhat limited if you have pre-existing health conditions.

Work With an Attorney on your Long-Term Care Insurance Claim

If you have long-term care insurance and have had a claim denied or believe your insurance provider is not acting in good faith, you may need to take legal action to protect your rights. Seeking out high quality and experienced attorneys who specialize in handling long-term care policy insurance denials could be the most important action you take. McKennon Law Group PC has the experience and expertise to handle these types of cases. Please call us at 949-504-5381 for a consultation at no charge if you or someone you know or love needs help.

Celebrating 50 Years of ERISA: A Milestone in Retirement Security

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was landmark legislation that marked a significant milestone in American social policy designed to protect employees and their benefits. ERISA now celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2024. Enacted on September 2, 1974, ERISA aimed to safeguard the retirement income of workers, providing a framework of protection for employee benefits plans and establishing standards for their administration. As we commemorate half a century of ERISA, it is essential to reflect on its impact, evolution, challenges, and the continuing quest for retirement security in the United States.

Before ERISA, retirement plans were vulnerable to mismanagement, leaving employees at risk of losing their hard-earned benefits. The need for comprehensive federal regulation became evident, leading to the enactment of ERISA. This landmark legislation not only established rules for the governance and disclosure of employee benefit plans but also introduced fiduciary responsibilities to ensure that plan assets were managed prudently and for the exclusive benefit of participants.

Key Provisions and Achievements: ERISA introduced several key provisions that transformed the landscape of retirement planning in the United States:

Fiduciary Standards: ERISA imposes fiduciary duties on plan administrators and trustees, requiring them to act solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. This provision aimed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure the prudent management of plan assets.
Reporting and Disclosure Requirements: ERISA mandates comprehensive reporting and disclosure of plan information to participants, including details about plan features, funding, and investment options. This transparency empowers employees to make informed decisions about their retirement savings.
Vesting and Participation Standards: ERISA established minimum standards for vesting and participation in retirement plans, ensuring that employees accrue benefits over time and have the opportunity to participate in employer-sponsored plans. The enactment of ERISA brought about significant achievements in retirement security, fostering greater accountability, transparency, and protection for American workers and their families.

Evolution and Amendments: Over the past five decades, ERISA has undergone several amendments and regulatory changes to adapt to evolving economic, social, and demographic trends. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 introduced reforms aimed at enhancing nondiscrimination rules and expanding coverage for employees. Additionally, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 strengthened funding requirements for defined benefit plans and encouraged the adoption of automatic enrollment features in defined contribution plans.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 also had implications for ERISA, introducing new reporting and disclosure requirements for employer-sponsored health plans. Furthermore, ongoing regulatory initiatives, such as the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, have sought to enhance protections for retirement savers and promote fee transparency in the financial services industry.

ERISA’s claims handling regulations created requirements to protect employees when they file claims. They have changed the landscape for claims handling and they have been modified over the years to better protect employees and their beneficiaries. This has become necessary since insurers and claims administrators have become more aggressive in denying claims such as disability, life, health and accidental death insurance claims. But, only so much can be done through regulation and ERISA attorneys who represent employees and their beneficiaries have been and will be needed to ensure ERISA plan participants and beneficiaries receive their benefits.

Future Outlook: The rise of defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, has shifted greater responsibility onto individual workers to save and invest for retirement, exposing them to market risks and investment uncertainties. Addressing these challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, including policy reforms, employer engagement, financial literacy initiatives, and innovative retirement savings solutions. Employee benefits become more complicated over time and this will continue; ERISA will have to adapt to these changes.

Looking ahead, policymakers, employers, and stakeholders must collaborate to strengthen and modernize the retirement system, ensuring that it remains resilient and inclusive in the face of future challenges. This may involve exploring new retirement plan designs, enhancing access to workplace savings programs, harnessing technology to improve retirement planning tools, and promoting lifelong financial wellness among workers of all ages.

Conclusion: As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of ERISA, we recognize its enduring legacy in promoting retirement security and protecting the benefits of millions of American workers. From its inception, ERISA has set a standard for fiduciary responsibility, transparency, and participant protection in the administration of employee benefit plans. However, the journey towards a secure retirement for all remains ongoing, requiring continued innovation, collaboration, and commitment from policymakers, employers, and individuals alike. By building on the foundation laid by ERISA, we can strive towards a future where Americans can retire with financial stability.

Court Finds That McKennon Law Group PC’s Client Is Entitled to Long-Term Disability Benefits; Rejects Guardian Insurance Company’s Application of Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion

On May 9, 2024, in the matter of Jason Kim v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 8:23-cv-01579, 2024 WL 2106240 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2024), the Honorable David O. Carter of the Central District of California ruled in favor of McKennon Law Group PC’s client, Jason Kim, ruling that our client was entitled to long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under a group disability policy (the “Policy”) governed by ERISA. The insurer, Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (“Guardian”), had denied the claim based on a pre-existing condition exclusionary clause. Judge Carter ruled that Guardian had erred in denying the claim.

For greater context, pre-existing condition exclusions are portions of disability insurance policies that preclude coverage if the insured had the disabling condition, or a condition related thereto, before coverage under the policy began. These clauses are aggressively used by insurers to protect their profit margins. Of note, whereas an insured usually carries the burden of establishing entitlement to coverage under an insurance policy, if an insurer invokes a pre-existing condition exclusion, then the insurer has the burden of establishing that the exclusion applies.

Here, the insurer invoked the clause when it simply did not apply. Before obtaining coverage under the Policy, our client suffered from mild depression, anxiety, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). Of note, these conditions were sufficiently mild that they were borderline subclinical. In January 2021, however, everything changed. Our client developed COVID-19. Shortly thereafter, he developed a wide array of serious symptoms. These included brain fog, cognitive impairments, extreme pacing (our client wore out a pair of shoes in a couple of days), fever, chills, insomnia, panic attacks, restlessness, agitation, “pressure in the head,” loss of the ability to communicate, short-term memory damage, psychosis, and damage to the ability to process information. He was prescribed the medication Zyprexa. Unfortunately, he had a severe reaction to the medication. He developed tardive dyskinesia (“TD”) and tardive akathisia (“TA”). These are severe and disabling neurological/movement disorders.

Our client submitted a claim for LTD benefits under the Policy. Guardian denied the claim. It insisted that our client’s anxiety, depression, and ADHD were pre-existing conditions for the myriad of symptoms he developed in January 2021. Of note, virtually everyone who had knowledge of the claim insisted that the pre-existing condition exclusion did not apply. Even the insurance broker who sold the Policy insisted that the clause did not apply. Guardian, however, refused to listen. It denied the claim.

We sued Guardian for the outstanding benefits under the Policy. The case ultimately went to trial. The parties submitted extensive briefing and the 6,000-page administrative record to the Court. The Court heard over two days’ worth of oral argument and then requested a second round of briefing. Ultimately, on May 9, 2024, the Court ruled in our client’s favor.

Guardian’s case relied almost entirely on a few medical records related Mr. Kim’s prescription of Zyprexa. In particular, the medical records stated that Mr. Kim was prescribed the medication for anxiety and depression. Guardian reasoned that, therefore, ALL of Mr. Kim’s symptoms were related to anxiety and depression, the pre-existing conditions. We, in turn, explained that, per the medical records, his then-treating physician had only spoken to Mr. Kim for five minutes over the phone before prescribing the medication. He had not physically examined Mr. Kim or administered any tests. We also explained to the Court that all of Mr. Kim’s subsequent treating physicians agreed that he was not suffering from common anxiety and depression in January 2021. They attributed his symptoms to COVID-19 or psychosis. The Court concluded that a five-minute phone call was insufficient evidence to rely on. It stated:

Guardian focuses on the fact that the records from Dr. Moldawsky reference pre-existing anxiety and depression. However, medical diagnoses often change over time as symptoms develop and emerge. That Dr. Moldawsky believed at the onset of Plaintiff’s severe symptoms that pre-existing anxiety and depression may have been reasonable at the time, even though it later became clear that Plaintiff’s condition was substantially different. Guardian’s insistence that Plaintiff’s psychosis was simply a more severe form of his prior anxiety and depression is not consistent with the facts or evidence. (Id. at *8)

Other evidence revealed how unreasonable Guardian’s position was. Not only did the agent who sold the Policy argue against the exclusion’s applicability, but even one of Guardian’s own peer review doctors specifically explained that there was no connection between Mr. Kim’s disability and his pre-existing conditions. See id. at *6.

We argued that COVID-19 caused Mr. Kim’s symptoms. Multiple treating physicians had reached that conclusion. However, although Guardian and its physician rejected this conclusion, as the Court explained:

Plaintiff’s medical records demonstrate that COVID-19 has been shown to cause psychosis and could potentially have caused psychosis here. Guardian’s own employee acknowledged this. It is not necessary for Plaintiff’s claim, however, to demonstrate that COVID-19 triggered his health problems in early 2021. Plaintiff must demonstrate that what rendered Plaintiff disabled was not caused or substantially contributed to by a pre-existing condition or its treatment. The prior identified mental health conditions/treatments did not “cause or substantially contribute to” the disability during the lookback period. (Id. at *6)

Having concluded that the pre-existing condition exclusion did not apply, the Court then proceeded to analyze whether Mr. Kim was disabled under the Policy. See id. at *7. The Court explained that Guardian had failed to argue before the Court that Mr. Kim was not disabled. See id. at *7. It further noted that there was significant medical evidence documenting Mr. Kim’s disability. See id. It determined that, in fact, he had been disabled during the time period in question.

Our client has sufficiently recovered that he has returned to work. As such, the Court awarded our client his benefits for a closed-end period.

Insurers tend to be overly aggressive when invoking pre-existing condition exclusions. However, it is the insurer’s burden to establish that the exclusion applies. This case served as yet another example, and warning, to insurers. They cannot carelessly invoke exclusions like the one involved here.

What is the Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion in Disability Insurance Policies and How Does It Work?

Understanding How Pre-Existing Conditions Exclusions in Disability Policies Can Affect A Claim For Disability Benefits

Short- term disability and long-term disability insurance policies are designed to provide peace of mind about your future. If you are injured or become ill to such a degree that you are unable to do your job, disability insurance can help you maintain financial stability.

However, insurance companies commonly deny disability claims based on policy exclusions. After all, the insurance provider exists to make money as a business, and finding ways to avoid paying disability benefits helps their bottom line. Because of this, you may find your claim is denied for any number of reasons, including improper reasons and reasons that are allowable under your policy. One common exclusion found in most disability policies that may allow an insurance company to legitimately deny your claim is the pre-existing condition exclusion.

What Is A Pre-Existing Condition?

A pre-existing condition is defined in a disability policy and typically is defined as any injury, illness, or other health-related condition that was diagnosed and/or treated at a time prior to the policy issuance or the date disability coverage began which later caused you to become disabled. Insurance companies will often establish what is called a “look back period” to determine whether a pre-existing condition existed during that time period. Typically, the disability must occur within twelve months after coverage began in order for an insurer to rely on the exclusion.

For example, say a policy defines the look-back period as 90 days prior to the date coverage began under a disability policy. If the insured is treated for or diagnosed with any injury or illness during that 90-day period and that condition in some way caused a disability, it may be considered a pre-existing condition. It should be noted that the insurance company will interpret “treated” or “diagnosed” as broadly as possible to include even conditions discussed only in passing with your doctor during a visit.

Consider this hypothetical situation: Within the 90-day period before purchasing a disability insurance policy, you are treated by your medical providers three times. First, you are treated for an ongoing heart condition. Next, you are treated for a new complaint of back pain and diagnosed with a slipped disc. Finally, you are treated for strep throat.

Later, you make a disability claim due to a back pain issue that leaves you unable to work. Because you were diagnosed with that slipped disc during the look-back period, your claim might be denied due to a pre-existing condition.

Why Insurance Companies Include Pre-Existing Conditions

Insurance companies include pre-existing condition exclusions in their policies to alleviate risks that people will or may seek coverage under a policy soon after a disability policy is issued or coverage begins. Insurance is not designed to pay for things that have already happened, but to protect you from possible future losses.

How Disability Insurers Use Pre-Existing Condition Clauses Inappropriately

Insurance companies can misuse pre-existing condition exclusions to deny disability claims in a few ways:

Stretching the definition of pre-existing condition: Sometimes, insurers might argue that a seemingly unrelated past condition is somehow connected to the current disability. For instance, if someone with a history of anxiety files a claim for back pain, the insurer might try to link the two, even if there is no medical basis for it.
Misinterpreting the “look-back period”: This is the timeframe before your policy’s effective date that insurers examine to identify pre-existing conditions. They might extend this period beyond what is allowed by the policy.

Exaggerating the severity of past conditions: Even if a relevant past condition existed, the insurer might downplay how well-controlled it was before the disability, exaggerating its role in the current situation.
Failing to consider all evidence: Insurers might focus solely on medical records that support their denial and overlook evidence that suggests that the medical condition is not subject to the exclusion.

Here are some signs that an insurer might be improperly using the pre-existing condition exclusion:

The denial letter is vague about why the condition is considered pre-existing.
The insurer relies on weak evidence to connect a past condition to the current disability.
The insurer ignores your doctor’s opinion on the limitations caused by your disability.

In a recent case our office handled and which was decided under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Central District of California concluded that a long-term disability (“LTD”) policy’s pre-existing condition exclusion did not apply after the insurer initially denied a claim for benefits based on the exclusion. The insurance company determined that the claimant was disabled but that his disability was caused by pre-existing conditions. The claimant had previously been treated for anxiety and depression and had been able to continue working with those conditions. He had not been treated for his existing anxiety and depression for some time and at the time he made his LTD claim his condition had become substantially more severe than the common anxiety and depression he had previously experienced; he had developed a new onset of psychosis that left him unable to work.

The court determined that the claim was not excluded from coverage because the insurance company could not sufficiently demonstrate that the claimant’s pre-existing condition substantially contributed to his disability. This case highlights the notion that insurance companies improperly invoke exclusions, including a pre-existing condition exclusion, to deny claims. An insurance company telling you that your claim is barred because of an exclusion does not necessarily make it true.

Get Help From an Experienced Legal Team to Fight Insurance Companies

Fighting insurance companies to protect your rights and assert your valid disability claim can be daunting. It may feel like it is you against a giant corporation—and it often is. However, the right legal team can mean the difference between being paid your claim and not being paid.

At the McKennon Law Group PC, we work with clients to understand their needs and insurance policies, especially disability insurance policies. Then we fight to overcome challenges in your claims process, dispute bad-faith insurance claims decisions, and negotiate settlements with insurance companies. If you or someone you love is dealing with a disability insurance denial or claims holdup, call us for a free consultation.

Challenging a Disability Insurance Claim Denial Based on a Peer Review Report

If you suffer an illness or injury that leaves you unable to work, disability insurance can be a crucial lifeline to help you survive financially. However, insurance companies deny a substantial portion of disability claims. A common tool insurance companies use to deny claims is the peer review report, or “paper review” report completed by doctors or nurses who do not examine or talk to the claimant and either directly work for the insurance company or they work for a company that hires such doctors to give opinions for insurance companies. Almost all the income from these latter companies is derived from insurers hiring them. That means that these medical consultants are almost always biased in favor of insurers and against disability insurance claimants.

Appealing a claim denial based on a peer review report can be challenging and understanding the process can be immensely helpful for you to be able to navigate through the disability claim appeals process, and possibly litigation, so you get the benefits to which you are entitled under your policy.

Understanding the Role of Peer Review Reports

Peer review reports are commonly used by insurance companies to evaluate disability claims. These reports are typically prepared by medical consultants who review your medical records and assess the validity of the disability, commenting on medical conditions and restrictions and limitations. The insurance company will provide your medical records to what they assert are “independent” medical consultants but as noted above, they are not. These consultants will review your records and provide a report to the insurance company. Most of the time, these reports are favorable to the insurance company and will assist them in denying legitimate disability claims.

However, peer review reports can contain inaccuracies, misinterpretations, or even biases that may lead to an unfair denial of your claim. It is vital that you address these issues with the insurance company in a timely manner. In ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) appeals matters, the insurer is required to give you an opportunity to review the report and comment on it before the insurer uses it to deny your disability claim. Properly addressing these issues means you will need to:

Review Your Denial Letter

The first step in the appeals process is to carefully review the denial letter from your insurance company. This letter should outline the reasons for the denial and include a copy of the peer review report. Understanding the specific inaccuracies in the report is essential to building a strong case for your appeal.

Gather All Relevant Documentation

Compile all the relevant documentation related to your disability, including your medical records, treatment history, and any communications with your healthcare providers. This information will help you and your attorney present a clear and comprehensive case.

Consult with a Disability Insurance Attorney

Hiring an experienced disability insurance attorney is one of the most critical steps in this process. An attorney with expertise in disability insurance claims can help you navigate the complex appeal process, assess the inaccuracies in the peer review report, and build a compelling case to challenge the denial.

Request an Internal Review

Most insurance policies require claimants to first go through an appeal with the insurance company, done internally, before pursuing external remedies such as suing in court. Your attorney can help you draft a well-documented and persuasive appeal highlighting any deficiencies in the peer review report. It is essential to follow the specific guidelines and deadlines set by your insurance policy during this process.

Pursue External Remedies

If your appeal is unsuccessful, or if your policy does not require an appeal, you can sue the insurance company in court. The litigation process may provide opportunities for your case to be resolved outside of court, for example through mediation. Your disability insurance attorney will guide you through these steps and represent your interests throughout the process.

Establish the Deficiencies in the Peer Review Report

Your attorney will work to pinpoint and highlight any inaccuracies and other deficiencies in the peer review report. This may include demonstrating that the reviewing physician misinterpreted your medical records, overlooked crucial details, rendered decisions without any evaluation and in a conclusory manner, or made biased assessments concerning your restrictions and limitations. Providing alternative expert opinions and medical evidence that counter the inaccuracies is significant to your case.

Present a Strong Legal Argument

Your attorney will craft a compelling legal argument to demonstrate that the peer review report’s deficiencies were the primary basis for your claim denial. They will show how these inaccuracies directly led to an unfair decision and violated the terms of your insurance policy. Your attorney can also conduct legal research to find cases in which the same biased medical consultants hired in your matter were found to have defective reports or demonstrated clear bias.

Demonstrate Your Disability

In addition to challenging the peer review report, it is important to reaffirm your disability and its impact on your ability to work. Your attorney will work with you to provide clear and convincing evidence of your condition, including medical records, statements from your healthcare providers, and any additional documentation that supports your case. The best way to demonstrate your disability is to have your physician or other medical professional comment on the report and attack it where necessary.

Conclusion

If your disability insurance claim has been denied based on a defective and/or biased peer review report, you do not have to accept this decision as final. With the assistance of an experienced disability insurance attorney like those at McKennon Law Group PC, you can navigate the complex appeals process and build a convincing case to challenge the denial. By following the steps outlined in this article and working closely with your attorney, you can increase your chances of securing the disability benefits you rightfully deserve. Remember, when faced with a wrongful denial, seeking professional legal assistance can make all the difference in your journey toward financial security and peace of mind. Reach out to McKennon Law Group PC to discuss your disability claim denial with an experienced disability insurance attorney.