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.
Ed Comitz – My Own Story
Living an active lifestyle has always been important to me. It was not until I suffered a severe neck and head injury that I wondered if I would ever be able to enjoy sports or be active again.
Within months of my injury, I began experiencing constant, agonizing pain in my neck and shoulder, lost manual dexterity and fine manipulation skills with my left hand, and had difficulty moving, all of which caused a precipitous decline in the quality of my life. I felt physically distressed – as if I were constantly being injured.
MRI’s revealed two large disc protrusions. From there, I embarked on a year-and-a-half journey of treatment options without success: sports medicine, physical therapy and rehabilitation programs, consults at the Mayo Clinic and throughout the country, surgical consults, multiple epidural injections (interlaminar and transforminal), facet injections, trigger point injections, massage, chiropractic, traction, Ibuprofen and muscles relaxers. Despite my unrelenting commitment to get better, my condition unfortunately progressed to the point where the entire left side of my body was enormously tense, including my hip, leg and foot. I started losing proprioception in my foot and ambulated with an irregular gait, and my functionality was becoming worse by the day.
This was enormously shocking. I then consulted with another neurosurgeon and had more MRIs, which now revealed possible spinal cord involvement. I was admitted to Barrow Neurological Institute, where I underwent a multi-level discectomy and fusion. I have spent over a year rehabilitating and the process has been self-revealing, always too slow, but with significant progress over time. I now enjoy skiing, playing tennis, hiking, biking, swimming and jogging in moderation. While I have improved exponentially since the surgery, I still have limitations and struggles, and know that my condition can be aggravated if I do not take very good care of myself.
Most of my clients are physicians and dentists, and many have conditions similar to mine. As an attorney, I can keep working – if I drop a pen or get a cramp in my side, I can take a break or stretch, then resume working. If I were a medical professional, though, I would not be able to sustain positioning for long periods of time, each and every day, and would be concerned about patient safety.
I am strongly committed to my clients and practice, am sympathetic to physical limitations and restrictions that others may not fully understand, and use my experience to provide my clients with the results they deserve. My firm provides representation to professionals nationwide and throughout metropolitan Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tucson, Flagstaff and Yuma.
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.
Solid Record With All Major Disability Insurance Carriers
Our Firm and its attorneys have resolved cases with all of the leading disability insurance companies and third-party administrators in the country, including, among many others: Berkshire, Boston Mutual, CIGNA, Disability Management Services (“DMS”), Disability Reinsurance Management Services (“DRMS”), Equitable, First Unum, Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Company, Guardian, The Hartford, Integrated Disability Resources, Jefferson Pilot, Liberty Mutual, Lincoln Financial, Mass Mutual, Met Life, Monarch, New York Life, Northwestern Mutual Life, Paul Revere, Penn Mutual, Provident, Prudential, Reassure America Life Insurance Company, Reliance, Royal Maccabees, Standard, Swiss Re, and Unum (formerly UnumProvident). We have also litigated and resolved cases against third-party vendors of insurance companies, including Behavioral Medical Interventions (BMI) and PsyBar.
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”
Disability Insurance and the Doctor:
Will You Be Able to Collect?
Attorney Ed Comitz’s article,“Disability Insurance and the Doctor: Will You Be Able to Collect?”, was published in the May/June 2003 issue of AzMed, the publication of the Arizona Medical Association.
The article focuses on own-occupation policies marketed to physicians, the disability insurance claim process, key policy definitions, the hurdles experienced by disabled physicians (including mental health limitations/exclusions), reasons claims are denied, Arizona insurance law (including elements of bad faith and punitive damages for wrongful claim denials).
