Filing Anonymously in a Disability Lawsuit: A Case Study
Filing a lawsuit against an insurance company in connection with a denied claim can be a lengthy and involved process, that can also often seem invasive. Likely, personal and detailed information about the insured will become part of the court records (which, unless special circumstances exist, are public record).
This can be daunting to a claimant, especially, for example, when they have a mental health or other medical condition that impact how patients or clients view them. This could prompt a claimant to want to stay anonymous in court proceedings; however, to do this, a party to a case must meet a specific and high bar—including in Arizona.
One such case is that of John Doe v. Unum[1] before the District Court of Arizona. The Plaintiff claimed that his need for anonymity outweighed any prejudice the opposing party would face or the public’s interest in know the party’s identity.
Here, Doe was a complex commercial litigator suffering from long-haul COVID and an autoimmune disorder, which lead him to filing for disability benefits under his Unum policy. He was no longer able to practice full-time, but (under the direction of his doctor) was able to work part-time in a reduced capacity. Therefore, he still had clients and was concerned about his reputation. For this reason, he argued that if his identity was made public, he would be embarrassed and financially harmed. In addition, he claimed that Unum would not be harmed, as they would still know his identity based on the policy and claim numbers in his filing.
The Court indicated that it didn’t necessarily buy this argument, stating that there was no credible evidence to the severity of the threatened harm. They discussed that the factors they had to consider when to allowing a party to proceed anonymously in Arizona were (1) the severity of the threatened harm, (2) the reasonableness of the party’s fears, (3) the anonymous party’s vulnerability to such retaliation, (4) the precise prejudice at each stage of the proceedings to the opposing party and (5) whether the public’s interest in the case would be best served by requiring the litigants to reveal their identities.
At the point of Doe’s filing to remain anonymous, Unum had not been served. The Court weighted the evidence and decided at the current juncture, Doe could proceed anonymously, as it did not prejudice Unum at “this early stage of the proceeding”—but that Unum would have the option to file an objection after service. As of the writing of this, Unum has not filed an objection.
However, we’ve written before about how other insurance companies have challenged a Plaintiff’s attempt to remain anonymous—likely in an attempt to wrongfully deter individuals from seeing a lawsuit through (in some cases by using the threat of public embarrassment). It remains to be seen in this instance if Unum will challenge Doe’s ability to remain anonymous. If you feel you might need to file a lawsuit against your insurance company, an experienced disability attorney can help you evaluate the situation and identify what options are available to you.
Every claim is unique and the discussion above is only a limited summary of the court’s ruling in this case. If you are concerned that your insurer is not evaluating your claim under the proper standard, an experienced disability insurance attorney can help you assess the situation and determine what options, if any, are available.
[1] Doe v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. CV-25-04681-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2026).
