Working with Disability Claim Managers
– Know Your Rights and Be Vigilant
Even though disability insurance companies have a duty under Arizona law to give your interests equal consideration to their own, insurers rarely act for the policyholder’s benefit. Claims benefit managers are frequently taught how to approach disability claimants to get a desired result, usually a denial or termination of disability benefits. From our years of experience with the disability insurance industry, we have learned some of the tactics claims personnel use. The following is a list of strategies to beware of. Though not every disability claim manager engages in these practices, it is always a good idea for claimants to be vigilant in order to protect their rights under their policy.
- Treating claims like a unit of production. Disability insurance companies often don’t care to know how being disabled and filing for benefits affects you personally. Don’t expect that they will understand or be sympathetic to the personal toll the entire process takes on a claimant, especially a doctor or dentist who has spent years in study and practice to achieve professional success. To disability insurers, each claim is a unit of production being channeled towards an end goal.
- Misinterpreting policy provisions. Disability insurance claims managers are not lawyers, and just like most people, often have trouble properly interpreting complicated insurance policies. For example, claims personnel might inform an insured that her claim is an “any occupation” policy when in fact it is an “own occupation” policy.
- Claiming rights that don’t exist under the policy. Claims managers will also frequently indicate that the disability insurance company can make claimants do certain things or provide certain information that is not actually required under the individual policy. For instance, an insurer might tell a claimant he needs to complete a detailed daily activity report, when there is actually no such requirement to do so in his policy. Make sure you know what your policy does and does not actually allow.
- Acting like your friend. Employees of disability insurance companies often try to act like your friend or partner in the process, when they are actually channeling your disability claim towards denial or termination of benefits. Often, claims managers will call an insured for a friendly chat, all the while peppering the insured with seemingly innocuous questions meant to provide evidence for claim denial. Policyholders should understand the questions being asked, and not get distracted by the congeniality of the caller.
- Sending “field investigators” to talk about your claim. Another common practice in the disability insurance industry is to schedule an in-person interview in the claimant’s home with a “field investigator.” These interviewers will spend hours asking about your symptoms and activities in excruciating detail, taking copious notes and even asking to photograph you. What they may not make clear is that the field investigator has no authority over the disposition of your claim. Rather, he or she is a private investigator hired by your insurance company to gather evidence against your claim and provide a starting point for surveillance.
The best way to make sure that these claims management practices aren’t used to take advantage of you when making a claim for disability benefits is to enlist a disability insurance attorney who knows the tactics used and how to guard against them. Nevertheless, every insured should understand their insurance company’s approach to claims management and be cautious in their interactions with claims management personnel.
What is a Reservation of Rights?
When a disability insurance company is fighting a claim, it will often agree to pay benefits – but with a “reservation of rights.” What is a reservation of rights and how can it impact a legitimate disability claim?
When an insurer pays a disability claim under a reservation of rights, it is essentially providing a provisional payment. Though the insurance company may be sending you a check, it is not admitting that it actually has any liability under the policy. Instead, it is “reserving the right” to stop paying your disability claim if it can find evidence to deny it later. Once the company denies your disability claim, they can also demand you to repay them whatever proceeds they have distributed to you.
This practice is good for the insurance company, as it buys it extra time to investigate – and often later deny – a claim without putting it at risk of violating the laws against undue delay in payment. However, because the insurance company can still investigate the claim and then demand full repayment at any moment, the reservation of rights provides no peace of mind for the policyholder. Fortunately, a disability insurance attorney can protect you from this uncertainty by properly presenting your claim and thoroughly monitoring the insurance company’s actions to reach a beneficial result.
Surveillance of Disability Claimants: When Are Private Investigators Watching?
As we have discussed in the past, surveillance is a tool commonly used by disability insurance companies to analyze – and often deny – legitimate disability claims. When surveillance is taken out of context or misconstrued, it can lead to unfair disability denials.
All too often, disability insurance companies expect people with disabilities to stay at home, in bed. What they fail to realize is that most doctors actually encourage disabled claimants to try some activities of daily living, light physical therapy, or social interaction. Just because a disabled person can eat chips at a restaurant with family doesn’t mean he can perform all of the duties of his former occupation. Nevertheless, disability insurers often try to get any physical activity on camera and use it as proof that the claimant is not disabled.
Many people filing for private disability wonder when private investigators are watching them. After years of dealing with disability insurance detectives, we have recognized the five most popular times for surveillance of policyholders:
- During holidays. This is when policyholders are likely to be out of the house enjoying time with family and friends.
- On the claimant’s birthday. Just as on holidays, a disabled claimant is likely to push themselves to get out and enjoy the day.
- Over weekends. During weekends, insureds or more likely to attempt minor errands or go outside with family.
- Any time they have a chance of catching a claimant engaged in physical activity, based on information provided by the claimant on activity logs and in interviews. For example, if the claimant wrote on an activity log that he takes his dogs out in the morning, the private investigator will be there with a camera to document the insured walking in the yard.
- Near the end of fiscal quarters, when the insurance company is under pressure to save money by denying or terminating claims.
Don’t Toss the Policy: Important Documents for a Disability Insurance Claim
If you are a doctor, dentist, or other professional considering filing a long-term disability claim, there are some key disability insurance documents to collect and keep in order to properly understand and document your claim, including:
1. Your disability insurance policy
2. The insurance application
3. Notes or letters from meetings with the insurer’s sales agents
4. Notes of telephone conversations with your insurance company employees
5. Letters to and from your insurance company
6. Emails to and from your insurance company
7. Medical records
8. Billing records from your practice
9. A daily pain journal, if necessary
Make sure to keep all of your disability insurance papers and notes in an organized file, and if you have to file a claim, contact an experienced disability insurance attorney who can help you interpret your policy, present your claim, and communicate with your insurer.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 7 (Washington)
A disability insurance company may be subject to a lawsuit for bad faith when it wrongly denies a claim. There are differences from state to state in what constitutes insurer bad faith. In previous posts in this series, we outlined the standards of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. In today’s post, we outline the bad faith law of Washington.
Insurance companies who use unfair claim settlement practices can be found to have committed bad faith under Washington’s tort law or under the Washington Consumer Protection Act. According to Washington law, an insurance company’s violation of the consumer protection statute constitutes an automatic unfair trade practice violation, and also a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If a policyholder brings a claim under the Consumer Protection Act, he or she will have to show economic (monetary) damages, but if he or she brings a tort bad faith claim, the injury need not be economic and can include emotional distress or other personal injuries.
The Statutes: R.C.W. 48.01.030 and Wash. Admin. Code § 284-30-330
The Rules: Washington regulations define the following as unfair or deceptive practices for settlement of insurance claims:
- Misrepresenting pertinent facts or policy provisions.
- Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies.
- Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable investigation.
- Failing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time after fully completed proof of loss documentation has been submitted.
- Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.
- Compelling an individual disability claimant to initiate or submit to litigation, arbitration, or appraisal to recover amounts due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such actions or proceedings.
- Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was entitled by reference to written or printed advertising material accompanying or made part of an application.
- Asserting to a disability insurance claimant that the company has a policy of appealing arbitration awards in favor of insureds for the purpose of compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the amount awarded in arbitration.
- Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring a first party claimant or his or her physician to submit a preliminary claim report and then requiring subsequent submissions which contain substantially the same information.
- Failing to promptly settle claims, where liability has become reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance policy coverage.
- Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
- Failing to expeditiously honor drafts given in settlement of claims.
- Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the processing and payment of claims after the obligation to pay has been established—normally within 15 business days after receipt by the insurer or its attorney of properly executed releases or other settlement documents.
- Negotiating or settling a claim directly with any claimant known to be represented by an attorney without the attorney’s knowledge and consent.
The Tort Law Standard: An insurance company’s actions can be considered bad faith if its breach of the insurance contract was unreasonable, frivolous, or unfounded.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 5 (New Mexico)
Over the past several days, we have been outlining the different standards that apply from state to state in determining whether a disability insurance company has acted in bad faith in wrongly denying a claim. Previous posts have outlined the standards for Arizona, California, Colorado, and Nevada. Today we look at the bad faith law of New Mexico.
New Mexico created a statute governing insurance company practices, called the Trade Practices and Frauds Act, in order to promote ethical settlement practices within the insurance industry. Anyone who has suffered damages as a result of a violation of that statute by a disability insurance company can bring an action to recover his or her damages. A policyholder can also bring a suit based on the same wrongful conduct under New Mexico’s tort law.
The Statute: N.M. Stat. § 59A-16-20
The Rules: Any and all of the following practices by an insurance company are defined as unfair and deceptive practices and are prohibited:
- Falsely representing pertinent facts or policy provisions relating to coverages at issue to insured.
- Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with policyholders.
- Failing to have reasonable standards in place for prompt disability claim processing and investigation.
- Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims of insureds within a reasonable time after proof of loss requirements under the policy have been completed and submitted.
- Not attempting in good faith to come to prompt, fair and equitable settlements of claims in which the disability insurance company’s liability has become reasonably clear.
- Compelling insureds to institute a lawsuit to recover amounts due under their policy by offering substantially lower amounts than those ultimately recovered when the insureds have made claims for amounts reasonably close to the amounts they ultimately recover at trial.
- Attempting to settle a disability claim for less than the amount to which a reasonable person would have believed he was entitled by reference to written or printed ads accompanying or made part of a disability insurance application.
- Trying to settle claims on the basis of an application that was altered without the policyholder’s knowledge or consent.
- Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring unnecessary, duplicative information.
- Failing to promptly provide an insured a reasonable explanation of the basis the insurance company relied on to deny a disability claim.
In our next blog post about Insurance Bad Faith, we will outline the standards that apply in the State of Texas.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 3 (Colorado)
In this series of blog posts, we have been outlining the first-party insurance bad faith law of Arizona, California, and other states. Today’s post examines the bad faith law of Colorado.
Although the Colorado statute regarding unfair or deceptive acts or practices provides for state regulation of insurance companies and not for private lawsuits for damages, an insured can still bring a bad faith action against a disability insurer under Colorado tort law. Nevertheless, in determining whether an insurance company’s delay in paying benefits or its denial of disability benefits was reasonable, the court or jury can consider evidence that the insurer’s conduct violated the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act statute.
The Statute: Col. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104
The Rules: An insurance company must:
- Not misrepresent pertinent facts or policy provisions.
- Acknowledge or act reasonably promptly upon communications.
- Adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt investigation of claims.
- Conduct a reasonable investigation based upon all available information before refusing to pay a disability insurance claim.
- Affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time.
- Attempt in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of claims in which liability has become reasonably clear.
- Not compel insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts due under their policies by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in legal actions brought by the insureds.
- Not attempt to settle a claim for less than the amount that a reasonable person would have believed he or she was entitled to based upon the insurer’s advertising or policy application materials.
- Not delay investigation or payment by requiring submission of multiple forms containing substantially the same information.
- Promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in the policy or law for a claim denial or compromise settlement offer.
The Tort Law Standard: Disability insurance companies can be liable for first party bad faith if they act unreasonably and with knowledge of or reckless disregard of their unreasonableness.
In our next post, we will review the insurance bad faith standards for the State of Nevada.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 2 (California)
In this series of posts, we are outlining what constitutes insurer bad faith from state to state. Our previous post outlined Arizona’s standards, and today, we look at the bad faith law of California.
In California, the Unfair Trade Practices Act of the Insurance Code statute dealing with unfair claims settlement practices is merely a codification of its bad faith law. A policyholder can bring a suit in California against its disability insurance company under the tort law, but not under the statute itself.
The Statute: Cal. Ins. Code § 790.03(h)
The Rules:
An insurance company’s duties include the following:
- To investigate disability claims thoroughly.
- To not deny coverage based on unduly restrictive policy interpretations.
- To use standards it knows are improper to deny disability claims.
- To not unreasonably delay processing or paying claims.
- To give as much consideration to the insured’s interests as it does to its own.
An insurance company is not allowed to:
- Misrepresent pertinent facts or policy provisions.
- Fail to acknowledge or act reasonably promptly on communications about a disability insurance claim.
- Fail to adopt and implement reasonable standards for prompt claims investigation.
- Fail to make a decision on coverage within a reasonable time after a policyholder has submitted complete proof of loss.
- Tell claimants the company always appeals arbitration awards in favor of claimants to get them to accept lowball settlement offers.
- Not attempt to make prompt, fair, and equitable settlements in which it has become reasonably clear that the disability insurance company must pay a claim.
- Force an insured to litigate to recover under the policy by offering an unreasonable settlement.
- Delay investigation or payment of claims by requiring an insured to submit multiple forms containing the same data.
- Withhold a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on in the insurance policy for the denial of a disability claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
- Directly advise a disability claimant not to obtain the services of a lawyer.
- Deceive a claimant as to the statute of limitations that applies.
The Tort Law Standard: A disability insurer can be found to have acted in bad faith if it withholds benefits unreasonably and without proper cause, whether or not the insurance company had a conscious awareness of wrongdoing or intent to harm the policyholder.
Disability Insurance Bad Faith: Different States – Part 1 (Arizona)
When a disability insurance company wrongly denies a disability claim in Arizona, it can be subject to a suit for bad faith. What constitutes insurer bad faith varies from state to state. Over the next several days, we will be outlining the first-party insurance bad faith law of Arizona and nearby states.
In many states, an insurance company can be held liable for its wrongful conduct in two ways: (i) under the tort law of the state or (ii) under a state statute. Though tort law and the statute usually overlap somewhat, they are sometimes meant to create separate and distinct causes of action. The tort law makes the insurance company pay damages to a private policyholder, while a violation of the statutes can often lead to either a suit by a private policyholder or charges brought by the state.
Arizona Insurance Bad Faith Law
The Arizona Unfair Claim Settlement Practices Act was intended to give the state Department of Insurance, headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, guidelines for determining whether an insurer’s procedures and practices occur with such frequency as to indicate an unacceptable general business practice. This statute does not allow an individual to bring a lawsuit based solely on its provisions.
However, dentists and physicians can bring an action under the state’s tort law. Under Arizona insurance law relating to disability claims, the core of the duty of good faith and fair dealing is that the insurer must act reasonably towards its insured, giving equal consideration in all matters to the insured’s interest.
The Statute: A.R.S. §20-461. Unfair claim settlement practices.
The Rules: An insurance company’s duties include the following:
- To act reasonably in handling the claim.
- To not misrepresent facts of policy provisions to avoid paying benefits.
- To reasonably interpret contract provisions.
- To not take unreasonable legal positions.
- To not impose requirements on the insured that are not contained in the policy.
- To properly investigate the claim.
- To treat the policyholder fairly and honestly at all times.
- To give as much consideration to the insured’s interests as it does to its own.
- To make claims decisions without regard to profitably.
- To not attempt to influence the opinions of independent medical examiners.
- To not destroy or alter documents to conceal evidence of claim handling.
- To not lie about actions taken on a claim.
The Tort Law Standard: An insurer can be liable for bad faith if there is an absence of a reasonable basis for denying benefits of the policy and the disability insurance company had knowledge or a reckless disregard of the lack of a reasonable basis for denying the claim.
If you have concerns that your disability insurance claim has been denied in bad faith, an experienced Arizona disability can help you determine if you have a lawsuit to file against your insurer.
Disability Claim Investigation:
What Can My Insurer Do In Arizona?
What your disability insurance company can do when it is investigating an Arizona claim for disability benefits largely depends on your specific circumstances and the language in your policy. However, there are some common tactics that Arizona courts will often allow – and some they will not.
What the disability insurance company can do
- Audit your tax returns and billing records
- Review your medical files
- Use a private investigator to conduct video and photograph surveillance
- Look at your public Facebook profile and pictures
- Follow you on Twitter
- Order an Independent Medical Exam
- Have an insurance company doctor opine about your disability
- Ask for a Functional Capacity Evaluation
- Contact your treating physician
- Schedule face-to-face interviews with you
- Interview your family, friends, co-workers and employees
- Demand precise quantifications of your time spent in every professional activity pre- and post-disability
- Pay your claim under a reservation of rights
What the disability insurance company cannot do
- Impose requirements on you that are not in your policy
- Attempt to influence the opinions of independent medical examiners
- Misrepresent policy provisions
- Conduct abusive interviews
- Unfairly delay a decision on your claim
- Fail to conduct a timely, adequate investigation of your disability claim
- Destroy key documents
- Lie about actions taken on a claim
- Place their financial interests ahead of your contractual rights
- Force you to litigate by offering an unreasonably low lump-sum buyout
When it comes to claims investigation, disability insurance companies often skirt the limits of what they can legally do. If you think your insurer might be acting in bad faith, contact an experienced Arizona disability insurance attorney to protect your disability benefits.
Regulate Yourself: Physicians Underreport Impaired Colleagues
A study by the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests that patients must increasingly rely on their doctor’s honest assessment of his own health, rather than the supervision of his colleagues. Physicians are simply not reporting colleagues whose disability endangers patients.
Traditionally, the medical profession has relied on internal mechanisms to guarantee that patients’ needs are met. A number of ethical codes require a physician to report a colleague who is suffering any disability or impairment that leaves him unable to safely care for his patients. As Matthew K. Wynia, MD, Director of the AMA Institute for Ethics, noted in an interview with American Medical News, “[r]eporting incompetent or impaired colleagues is a clear-cut professional obligation.”
Unfortunately, physicians are not following through on that obligation, even when the disability causes an unquestionable risk to patients.
The most common explanation given for failing to report a colleague was the belief that “someone else was taking care of the problem.” Physicians may conclude that their colleague is already aware of the effect his disability could have on patients, and that he would take time off if he felt his condition merited it. They may even assume that he is already taking steps to file a disability claim. They may also be reluctant to intrude on a personal crisis, preferring to leave their colleague to his own social and financial safety nets, such as close friends, family, or disability insurance.
Perhaps more revealing is the fact that 8% of respondents “believed it could easily happen to them.” The thought of being deprived of one’s own occupation, livelihood, and income by the sudden onset of an impairment or disability is certainly troubling at best. Physicians may feel that, if they were disabled and could not safely continue working, their colleagues might doubt their personal fitness for the medical profession. Moreover, they may fear a loss of income or the intense scrutiny imposed by disability insurers and claims representatives. They cannot bring themselves to put a colleague—and perhaps a friend—in that position.
One solution is increased reliance on the physician’s own evaluation of his disability—he must remain cognizant of his own health, and recognize when it is appropriate to take disability leave. Combined with an ongoing reporting obligation, the result would be a higher standard of care and safety for patients.
While the medical profession has always been self-regulating, the regulation of self—the honest evaluation of one’s own disability and capacity for fulfilling the obligations of his own occupation—may become an invaluable means for guaranteeing patient safety. As Dr. Wynia points out, “It’s not just a matter of doctors peeping over each others shoulders.”
Insurers Use High-Pressure “Return to Work” Programs to Terminate Disability Insurance Benefits
A personal return to work plan can be useful and empowering when it is the product of careful consideration between a disability insurance claimant, his doctor, and his attorney.
In the hands of a disability insurer, however, a return to work strategy is simply a means of beefing up the bottom line by pushing a claimant to give up his benefits and return to work before it’s safe.
To compound the problem, insurers increasingly market their return-to-work pressure methods to employers who seek to minimize disability-related absenteeism, dubbing the relationship a “strategic partnership.” Prudential, a major provider of disability insurance policies, offered its approach at the annual Disability Management Employer Coalition (DMEC) Conference in San Diego. In describing its methods, Prudential argued that “[s]ome disability absences are driven by subjective feelings about work,” a problem best solved by “an environment that breeds commitment.” Unum, one of the nation’s largest disability insurance providers, has given similar presentations, including one on strategies for managing employees’ chronic pain conditions—callously titled “A Pain in the Workplace.”
The unfortunate outcome is that the claimant faces pressure from both her employer and her insurer to return to work prematurely, often on a “trial” basis—a decision that can lead to forfeiture of benefits, aggravation of medical problems, and other complications.
Consult your doctor and a reliable, knowledgeable attorney before you consider returning to work, even for a “trial” period. The effect on your benefits and health could be profound.
Disabled Doctor Wins Fight Against Unum Life
On June 11, 2010, Salient News reported on a disabled doctor who prevailed against Unum in court to receive disability insurance benefits to which he was entitled. The attorney for the doctor discussed the tactics used by the insurance company:
Unum has shown a long-standing pattern of denying occupation specific policies focusing on denying high earning professionals such as doctors, lawyers, chiropractors and the like. Unum uses its own appeal process to unjustly prejudice and deny valid and deserving claims.
Why Is It So Hard to Collect on My Disability Insurance Policy?
Attorney Ed Comitz’s article, Why Is It So Hard to Collect on My Disability Insurance Policy? Avoiding Mistakes when Filing a Claim, was published by Whitehall Management in its May/June 2010 Newsletter magazine. The article explains why dentists and other healthcare professionals have such a difficult time collecting disability insurance benefits and advises against some common mistakes often made when filing a claim.
The Insurer Who Spied on Me – ABC News Investigation
Good Morning America recently reported on The Hartford going too far in their surveillance of some people with disability insurance claims, then unfairly cutting off benefits based on the video surveillance.
Read the full article here: The Insurer Who Spied On Me
Disability Insurance Policies: Which type do you own?
The type of disability insurance policy you have can affect the disability benefits you receive and the legal rights to which you are entitled. Below is an overview of the basic types of disability insurance policies.
Individual Disability Insurance:
As the name suggests, individual disability insurance policies are purchased by individuals directly from the carrier and provide long-term disability benefits in the event of sickness or injury. Individual polices fall into two categories: “general” and “occupational.” A “general” disability policy insures against sickness or injury that precludes the insured from performing all work while an “occupational” policy provides relief if the insured cannot perform the material and substantial duties of his or her own occupation. Thus, an “occupational” policy will provide greater coverage to the insured, who will be entitled to benefits even if he or she is able to engage in another occupation. Individual policies usually provide coverage in set amounts, e.g., $5,000 per month, rather than as a percentage of the insured’s salary.
Group Disability Insurance:
Group disability insurance polices are made available to participants of organizations, such as members of the American Medical Association. Unlike most individual policies, group policies typically confer benefits calculated as a percentage of the insured’s base salary, usually from 50-75%. These policies may limit the maximum amount of disability benefits payable, e.g., no more than $5,000 per month, regardless of base salary. Further, group policies often reduce disability benefits when the insured receives income from other sources such as Social Security disability benefits or worker’s compensation.
Employer-Sponsored Disability Insurance:
Employer-sponsored disability insurance policies are typically the least expensive policies and are similar to the “group” policies described above, providing employees with disability insurance based on a percentage of their base salary as part of the employer’s overall benefits package. Unlike group policies, however, employer-sponsored policies are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which has significantly affected the administration and litigation of disability insurance claims. Unfortunately, ERISA deprives insureds of significant rights to which they would normally be entitled under state law. These include the right to a trial by jury and the possibility of punitive damages where the carrier has acted unreasonably or maliciously.
Too Sick to Work? They Disagree
In the February 10, 2010 edition of SmartMoney Magazine, Brad Reagan writes:
Once employees go on disability, critics say, insurers today are more likely to require hour-long chats on the phone, hound patients for medical updates and push them back to work as soon as possible—often clashing with doctors who think the workers need more recovery time. “These claims are now managed, whereas they used to just be monitored. It can be very intrusive,” says Terry Smith, a principal in Mercer’s health and benefits practice.
To be sure, the disability battle is complex . . . . In 2004 and 2005, insurer Unum Group agreed to pay $24 million in fines to various state regulators over its handling of disability claims. In addition, the company agreed to review previously denied claims between 1997 and 2004—and ultimately reversed 42% of them in the patient’s favor.
. . . In 2004 and 2005, insurer Unum Group agreed to pay $24 million in fines to various state regulators over its handling of disability claims. In addition, the company agreed to review previously denied claims between 1997 and 2004—and ultimately reversed 42% of them in the patient’s favor.
New York Times Exposes Biased and Incompetent “Independent Medical Examiners”
A New York Times article published March 31, 2009, exposes the biases and lack of competency of certain “independent medical examiners” used to deny disability claims. The article is available here.
Federal Court Affidavit of Former Unum Employee
A sworn affidavit by a former UnumProvident employee in a 2004 case in the United States District Court for the District of Maine (Case No. 2:2004cv-00001) provides interesting insight into some of the tactics used by Unum. Daniel Donatelli’s affidavit appears below.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
Daniel Donatelli, Plaintiff vs. UNUMPROVIDENT CORP., Defendant
Civil No. 04-1-P-S
AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL DONATELLI
NOW COMES Daniel Donatelli and hereby states as follows under oath:
- My name is Daniel Donatelli. I am 18 years of age or older and believe in the obligation of an oath. The facts stated below in this affidavit are based on my personal knowledge.
- I was hired by Unum as a Disability Benefit Specialist to process long term disability claims. Disability Benefit Specialists at Unum had authority to make decisions on claims.
- After Unum’s merger with Provident, I became a customer care specialist and later was transferred to the Cardiac Psych Unit. Customer Care Specialists at UnumProvident did not have authority to make decisions on claims including approval, denial, and settlement. Our role became primarily processing and not managing.
- I did not begin working in the Cancer Unit until after February 25, 2002.
- While working in the cancer unit, Dennis Hersom told me that I would not survive a performance management program regardless of any improvement that I made with my work performance. Therefore, I resigned.
- While working in the Cardiac Unit and the Cancer Unit, I had some ethical and moral concerns regarding claims not being paid properly due to the pressure to meet quotas for closing claims.
- While I was at Unum, Unum provided insurance policies for employee sponsored plans, union or employee organization sponsored plans, employer sponsored plans, church plans, government plans, and many individual disability policy contracts.
- There was at least one individual Customer Care Specialist in my Cardiac Psych Unit, as well as an individual in my Cancer Unit, that was responsible for handling claims under individual disability insurance policies issued by Unum.
- I understood that all of these policies were subject to the same claims handling process and procedures. When I expressed concern about how the claims were handled, I was expressing concern for all claims and not just those on my caseload.
- I personally handled processed claims under church plans (for example, priests) and government/school plans (for example, teachers).
- Advance pay and closure was a way of closing claims based on a hypothetical ramp up of hours that was established by a customer care specialist or a vocational rehabilitation consultant. It was also based on an opinion from a UnumProvident doctor who made a determination of what the claimant was capable of doing. I believe that the advance pay and closure procedure is illegal because it could result in a claimant being subjected to higher scrutiny by UnumProvident if the claimant reopened his or her claim for benefits after a period of advancement has lapsed. Because the claimant had no right of appeal, and the claimant was not notified in advance, the claimant would be subject to higher scrutiny thereby misleading the client into agreeing to take an advance pay and close. Continue reading “Federal Court Affidavit of Former Unum Employee”
