Case Study: The Importance of Proper Documentation
In previous posts, we have discussed the importance of properly documenting your claim. From the moment you file your claim, most insurers begin collecting as much documentation as possible in the hopes that they can use the documentation to deny your initial claim, or terminate your benefits later on.
Oftentimes, benefits are terminated without warning. For example, an insurance company may conduct covert surveillance over an extended period of time, and then suddenly terminate your benefits once they feel that they have sufficient footage to assert that you are not disabled. If you are not consistently documenting the ongoing nature and extent of your disability, you may find yourself lacking sufficient evidence to contest a denial or termination of benefits.
For example, in the recent case Shaw v. Life Insurance Company of North America, the insurer refused to pay claimant her disability benefits. Although claimant saw multiple doctors and psychiatrists for PTSD and depression before filing her claim, the court ultimately found that the medical records she submitted were deficient, for several reasons.
First, even though claimant was asserting mental health claims, the claimant’s primary treatment provider was a family practice physician, not a psychologist or psychiatrist. Additionally, the court observed that the family practice physician’s records were “cursory, and contain[ed] minimal documentation of the frequency or intensity of [claimant’s] symptoms.” Id. To make matters worse, the claimant only saw the psychiatrists for a period of a few months, and the psychiatrists’ records showed that claimant had refused to follow the recommended treatment plan, which included both psychiatric medication and cognitive treatment.
The claimant attempted to supplement her medical records using a narrative letter she wrote describing her symptoms, along with several letters from family and friends. However, the court ultimately found the narratives unconvincing because there was a “significant potential for bias,” the severity levels described in the narratives conflicted with the psychiatrists reports, and claimant’s friends and family were not medical specialists or care providers and therefore could not diagnose claimant’s medical condition or assess claimant’s functional capacity. Id.
In the end, the court affirmed the denial of benefits, even under de novo review. Id.
What could the claimant have done better to avoid the denial? For one, she could have used a psychiatrist or psychologist as her primary treatment provider. She also could have followed the treatment plan recommended by her psychiatrists. Finally, she could have asked her physician to provide more thorough documentation.
Remember, courts will generally want to see medical records, not statements from friends and family. While such statements can be a useful way to provide background information, a court will want to see documentation of diagnosis and treatment by a health care provider. An experienced disability insurance attorney can help you review your medical records and determine if they are sufficient in comparison to the documentation that the insurance company will almost assuredly be collecting.
 No. CV1407955MMMFFMX, 2015 WL 6755187 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2015).