The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make
When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #5)
Many disability policies now contain provisions that limit coverage for mental conditions. However, each policy also contains specific definition of the types of conditions that are limited and/or excluded, and these definitions can vary greatly from policy to policy.
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below explains why you should read your policy carefully, to ensure that limitation provisions in your policy are correctly applied to your particular situation:
MISTAKE NO. 5: Believing All Mental Conditions Are Excluded or Subject to Limitations
Most disability insurance contracts differentiate between mental and physical disabilities. Most recent policies cut off benefits for psychiatric conditions after two or three years. Insureds often blindly accept their carrier’s decision to deny or limit benefits based on these conditions without considering numerous relevant factors, including whether there are any physical aspects to the mental condition, whether the mental condition has a biological/organic cause, or whether another, covered condition was the legal cause of the disability. Without exploring these issues in detail, insureds often blindly accept that certain conditions are limited or excluded from coverage when in fact they are not.
Action Step: Physicians should understand their policy’s mental conditions limitation and work with counsel on submitting their claim in such a manner as to ensure payment of benefits.
If you have submitted, or are considering submitting a disability claim, based on a mental illness, be sure to carefully review your policy’s language and do not simply assume that all mental conditions are excluded. And if your insurance company relies on one of these limitation provisions to deny your claim or limit your benefit period, you should consult with a disability insurance attorney and assess whether the insurance company’s decision is proper under the terms of your policy.
To learn more about the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #6)
If you are a physician, dentist, or other professional facing a disabling condition, you may be wondering when to tell your doctor that you’re thinking you may need to file a disability claim, and how to communicate it best. How and when you approach your doctor can have a significant impact on your claim, particularly if you have a slowly progressive condition, like an essential tremor or degenerative disc disease.
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below discusses some important considerations to keep in mind when interacting with your doctors:
MISTAKE NO. 6: Engaging in Inadequate Communication with Treating Physician
Physicians should not discuss their claim or that they are considering filing for disability insurance benefit with their treatment provider until after they have had several visits. Physicians are often reluctant to support claims for benefits if they question the motivations behind the claims. A physician who has treated, without success, the physician making the claim will likely be more willing to cooperate. It is also important that the physician making the claim communicate his or her symptoms and limitations to the treating physician in an organized and detailed manner so that all relevant information is recorded in the medical records, which the insurer will ultimately request. When finally speaking to the treating physician about the claim, the physician should ensure that the treating physician understands the definition of “disability” under the insurance policy, so that he or she can accurately opine as to the inability of the physicians making the claim to work.
Action Step: Physicians should fully discuss their condition with their treating physician to ensure supportive medical records and, after several appointments, work with him or her on submitting the claim for “disability” as defined in the policy.
Your doctor plays significant role in documenting the health information your insurer will eventually obtain and review when investigating your claim. With that in mind, it is important to understand the relevant definitions in your disability policy, consider the nature of your symptoms and limitations, and carefully consider when to approach your treating physicians about your disability claim.
To learn more about the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #7)
If you have never filed a long-term disability claim, you may not have given much thought to how to quantify job duties, but if you end up needing to file a claim, this is one of the first questions you’ll be asked on the disability claim forms. It is very important to be careful when filling out these portions of the claim forms, to prevent your insurer from taking advantage of imprecise responses and/or taking your responses out of context in order to deny or narrow the scope of your benefits.
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below discusses some considerations to keep in mind when completing this section of your initial claim form:
MISTAKE NO. 7: Quantifying Time
Physicians should be wary of insurance companies asking them to compartmentalize in percentages what activities they were engaged in pre- and post-disability. To the extent that there is any crossover, companies will often deny benefits or provide benefits for merely a residual disability. It is important that physicians broadly describe their important duties—rather than their incidental duties—so that the insurer has a clear understanding of the thrust of their occupation. For example, in response to a question about principal duties and the percentage of time spent on each duty, an anesthesiologist may be better off stating “100% surgical anesthesia” rather than compartmentalizing each and every incidental task (e.g., patient intake, supervising nurses during surgery, postoperative visits) into discrete percentages. The reason is the insurer may erroneously consider an incidental task a “principal duty,” and therefore downgrade the amount of benefits. For example, where a physician has duties as a businessman (e.g., supervising staff, overseeing payroll), the insurer may argue that the disabled physician can still manage his or her practice and is therefore only partially disabled.
Action Step: Physicians should not quantify their time until after they fully understand the definitions of “principal duties,” “disability,” and “occupation” under their policy.
To learn more about some of the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #8)
After submitting a claim for long-term disability benefits, it is important to keep in mind that your insurer will almost certainly conduct surveillance at some point (and many insurers use surveillance throughout the entire claim). Traditionally, insurers used private investigators and interviewers to conduct surveillance, but ever-advancing technology is providing insurers with even more tools to conduct surveillance, such as social media, online public record searches, and potentially GPS tracking, drones, stingrays, and other electronic methods of tracing your activities more closely and accurately than ever before (depending on whether lawmakers act to curb abuse of these new, emerging technologies).
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below explains why you should be aware of the potential for surveillance:
MISTAKE NO. 8: Ignoring the Possibility of Surveillance
Insurers are likely to videotape or photograph physicians who have filed for disability insurance benefits. Physicians who engage in any activities that they claimed they could not perform and are caught on tape are likely to have their benefits denied and the contract could be terminated.
Action Step: Physicians should not compromise their policy benefits by submitting a fictitious claim.
If you are considering submitting a long-term disability claim, remember that modern technology enables insurers to harvest information about you from the internet, and remain wary of suspicious situations that may be the insurance company’s investigators using pretexting to obtain information about you (for example, “friend” requests from individuals that you do not personally know may be efforts to gain access to your social media accounts).
Excessive, unnecessary surveillance can rise to the level of bad faith, and too often these types of methods are misused to manufacture “evidence” that insurers take out of context to terminate (and/or delay) benefit payments. If you think your insurer may be misusing surveillance in your claim, you should talk to an experienced disability insurance attorney and he or she can evaluate whether or not the scope of the insurer’s investigation is appropriate.
To learn more about some of the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #9)
Many insurance companies tell physicians, dentist and other professionals who have filed a long-term disability claim that their claims will not be approved unless they can produce objective evidence of their disabling condition. While some policies do contain express provisions limiting coverage for subjectively diagnosed conditions, many policies do not. In fact, your policy may be less exacting and require only verifiable evidence of disability. Under such a policy, you may still be able to collect if you can show that the cumulative effect of your symptoms and limitations are disabling.
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below explains why verifiable evidence of disability is important, even for subjective conditions:
MISTAKE NO. 9: Blindly Accepting that Subjectively Diagnosed Conditions Are Not Covered
Disability insurers often deny benefits by insisting that the insured’s subjective symptoms do not provide objective, verifiable evidence of disability. In many cases, there is no provision or contractual requirement mandating that the insured submit objective evidence of disability. Therefore, from the insured’s perspective, these insurance companies are merely trying to save money by generously interpreting policy language in favor of a claim termination. Notwithstanding the subjective nature of a particular condition, the insured may be able to secure benefits with ample evidence bearing on the extent and severity of his or her limitations, which is far more important than providing a definitive diagnosis.
Action Step: The severity and extent of the limitations are more important than an objectively verifiable diagnosis and must be fully communicated to a physician’s insurer.
If you are a physician or dentist suffering from a subjectively diagnosed condition, it is important to present your conditions and limitations in a precise and detailed fashion from the outset of your claim. At a minimum, this requires a supportive treating doctor who is willing to take the time to thoroughly document the extent and severity of your symptoms in your medical records.
To learn more about some of the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Disability Claim (Mistake #10)
Many physicians, dentists and other professionals who purchase disability insurance do not pay much attention to the policy and related documents once their application has been submitted and approved. Because of this, many of the professionals we consult with cannot find their policies when it comes time to file a claim, and many professionals are surprised to learn what their policies say, because they didn’t read them carefully when they first received them.
Ed Comitz’s article “The 10 Biggest Legal Mistakes Physicians Make When Filing a Claim for Disability,” published by SEAK, Inc. (2005), details ten of the most significant mistakes to avoid. The excerpt below explains why you should keep copies of all of your insurance documents:
MISTAKE NO. 10: Tossing Out Application, Policy, and Claims Documents
From the time of application forward, physicians should keep copies of everything (including notes from meeting with the insurer’s sale representative or agent, the policy application, and the policy itself). If the sales representative provided a letter or verbal representation that the physician jotted down, those notes can go a long way if the insurer says that the policy says something different. Similarly, information that the physician provided on the application may have a bearing on his or her reasonable expectations at the time of purchase.
Action Step: Physicians should keep all of the disability insurance papers and notes in an organized file.
If you end up losing your policy, you do have a right to request a duplicate copy from your insurer. However, it can take several weeks for insurers to process these requests, and your insurer may also use the request as an opportunity to interview you before you know what your policy says, and before you have a chance to speak with a disability insurance attorney about your claim.
Depending on your condition and the progression of your symptoms, if you don’t keep a copy of your policy, you may also be forced to decide whether you are going to file a claim without a complete understanding of what your policy says. This is not a position you want to be in, and it is therefore best to keep all of your policy documents so that you have them on hand if you need them.
To learn more about some of the tactics insurers use to deny claims and other mistakes to avoid, click here.
Northwestern Mutual Offers Insight Into How Disability Insurers Interpret and Apply “Own Occupation Coverage”
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance—a major provider of disability income insurance for physicians and dentists—has just launched a new website, the “Disability Income Insurance Knowledge Center,” which it claims will help policyholders understand the terms of their “own occupation” disability insurance coverage.
“Own occupation” policies are often marketed by disability insurers as allowing physicians and dentists to receive their full disability insurance benefit, while at the same time working in another occupation, as long as they can no longer practice medicine or dentistry. Some disability insurance policies further specify that the insured’s specialty will be considered his “occupation” for purposes of “own occupation” coverage. Under these disability policies, as they are frequently marketed, an insured could receive his full benefit, even if he is still working as a physician or dentist, as long as he is disabled from his former specialty.
As an example, a neurosurgeon who develops a hand tremor may still be a capable doctor, but he can no longer perform surgery. Since he can no longer perform the principal medical duty of neurosurgery (i.e., surgery), it would be logical to conclude that he would be disabled from his occupation as a neurosurgeon. However, Northwestern’s new website has an interactive “Fact or Fiction” quiz in which it offers its interpretation as to how these “own occupation” provisions should be interpreted. Northwestern’s conclusions are gross oversimplifications that fail to consider the nuances of a disability claim, and ignore differences in policy language and the manner in which the policies have been interpreted under Arizona law. These oversimplifications appear designed to dissuade individuals with legitimate disability claims from pursuing their remedies. Nevertheless, they offer a glimpse into how disability insurers often view an insured’s occupational duties. Some samples from the “quiz” include the following statements:
Statement: If I could not perform my principal medical duty, the one that’s my “bread and butter,” I’d be considered totally disabled under an “own occ” policy.
Northwestern Mutual: FICTION. “To be totally disabled under traditional ‘own occ’ disability income insurance definitions, you would have to be unable to do ALL of your principal duties.”
Depending on the terms of his “own occupation” policy, an Arizona physician or dentist may be totally disabled if he cannot perform any substantial part of his ordinary duties in his usual and customary manner. In one major case, an invasive cardiologist was no longer able to perform invasive procedures—a substantial part of her original duties—but continued work in non-invasive cardiology and geriatrics. The jury found her totally disabled under her “own occupation” policy and held that her insurer had denied her disability insurance claim in bad faith. It then awarded her $84.5 million.
This statement also reflects an important issue in interpreting these policies – while countless words and phrases are defined, the phrase “principal duties” is generally not defined. Taking advantage of this fact, insurers often attempt to transmute incidental duties, such as staff oversight or pre- and post-operative patient consultation, into principal duties, without any justification for doing so. If insurers were permitted to do this, as Northwestern suggests, it would render “own occupation” coverage illusory since, absent a catastrophic injury, the insurer would always be able to find that the insured could perform some duty of his prior occupation. Fortunately, Arizona courts do not permit insurers to classify all duties as “principal duties.” As one Arizona court noted “[f]ew specialty occupations could survive such piecemeal scrutiny. If separated into an hour-by-hour analysis, only asking the question whether these tasks are also performed in a more general setting, specialists who choose to continue to work in a more general practice after becoming disabled from their specialty could never qualify for total disability benefits, although the policy specifically allows for this.” Continue reading “Northwestern Mutual Offers Insight Into How Disability Insurers Interpret and Apply “Own Occupation Coverage””
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.
Ed Comitz Publishes in Anesthesiology News
Anesthesiology News (AN), the best-read publication in anesthesiology (according to Kantar Media, Media Chek®/FOCUST), is mailed monthly to all 43,983 anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents in the United States, and offers extensive coverage of over a dozen major clinical meetings affecting the specialty. Disability insurance attorney Ed Comitz recently published his article, Disability Insurance and the Specialized Anesthesiologist, in AN. The article focuses on the ability of subspecialized anesthesiologists to collect on their own-occupation disability insurance policies despite working in a new sub-specialty.
$60 Million Verdict Against Unum and Paul Revere
In Merrick v. Paul Revere, a Nevada jury returned a bad faith disability verdict against Unum and Paul Revere in the amount of $60 million. The prior jury had returned a verdict of $11.65 million, but Unum appealed and a new trial was ordered. The second trial focused on the proper punishment for Unum and Paul Revere, based on an alleged longstanding scheme to improperly deny and terminate legitimate disability claims. Like Nevada, many states (including Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Mexico, Montana and Vermont) have viable “bad faith” laws that allow claimants to sue in court for extra-contractual damages, including punitive damages.
AAJ Names Ten Worst Insurers
The American Association for Justice (AAJ) recently released the report The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America. The AAJ reached its conclusions after a comprehensive investigation of insurers’ legal and financial filings.
Read the entire report here: https://www.justice.org/ten-worst-insurance-companies-america.
Paper Trail Surveillance:
How Disability Insurance Companies Investigate You
Without Ever Leaving a Computer
We have written about video, photograph and social media surveillance in the past, but have yet to address another kind of “surveillance” that disability insurance companies use when a claim is filed: detailed record searches. When a policyholder files a claim for disability insurance benefits, one of the first things that claims personnel do is conduct a series of detailed record searches and record requests for all kinds of information on the claimant, including:
- Corporate and business filings;
- Civil court filings;
- Criminal background check;
- General internet search results;
- Workers compensation claims;
- Professional licenses;
- Real estate purchase and sale records;
- Medical records;
- Credit reports; and
- Pharmacy records.
The disability insurance claim process can be daunting, especially when insurers are delving into your personal and professional records. It is always best to have a disability insurance lawyer working to protect your privacy and your rights under the policy.
