ERISA Long Term Disability Case Citations and references

DISCLAIMER: Please note that every case is different and these verdicts and settlements, while accurate, do not represent what we may obtain for you in your case.

Failing to Consider Social Security Benefits Deemed Arbitrary and Capricious

The United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Post, finding that the Hartford’s benefit termination decision was suspect.  Since there had been no improvement in Post’s condition since the granting of benefits, the court doubted the basis for terminating the benefits.

Importantly, the court was critical of the insurance company’s disregard for the opinions and records of the treating physician and the Hartford’s sole focus on the one report that “did not discuss or attempt to discredit any of the physical limitations that several of Post’s doctors had found, and offered no opinion … as to her physical capabilities, other than to conclude that her pain was basically imaginary.”  The Court noted that Post had seen 14 doctors and that only the insurance company’s doctor believed her pain to be psychogenic.

The court cited a recent Supreme Court decision MetroLife v. Glenn, 123 S.Ct. 2343 (2008), in determining that the Hartford’s failure to address Post’s social security benefit made the decision to terminate benefits arbitrary and capricious.

Finally, the court stated that the Hartford’s aggressive tactics – including repeated episodes of surveillance after no outside activity had been observed and the Hartford had failed to obtain a functional capacity evaluation – was an abuse of discretion.

Post v. Hartford Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76916 (E.D. Pa. October 2, 2008).