Objections raised by Standard need to be denied for the principle of justice.

Ms. Kathleen M. Hackett brought suit in this Court against Standard Insurance Company alleging that Standard has wrongfully denied her long term disability benefits claim. Both the parties moved for the summary judgment. And District Court granted summary judgment on August 15, 2007. Court held that although Standard operated under a conflict of interest, it caused a serious breach of fiduciary duty. But Hackett failed to prove any potential finding which shows conflict of interest.

In appeal against the order of the District Court, Eighth circuit Court of appeal reversed and remanded the matter for its reconsideration of the conflict of interest in the light of Glenn V Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.  

In remand, Hackett’s disability attorney served a second set of interrogatories to Standard. Standard raised objections on those interrogatories and pointed out that discovery was already closed and remand was only allowed to consider the administrative records in light of Glenn.

The objections raised by Standard were as under.

Whether the interrogatories put forwarded are Discoverable which are related to the dispute and not asked at trial?

Ms. Kathleen M. Hackett brought suit in this Court against Standard Insurance Company for claiming that Standard has wrongfully denied her claim for long term disability benefits. Both the parties moved for the summary judgment. District Court held that although Standard operated under a conflict of interest, which caused a serious breach of fiduciary duty. According to District Court Standard did not abuse its discretion in denial of Hackett’s claim. Hackett appealed against order of the District Court. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision and remanded the matter to District Court for reconsideration in the light of Glenn.   

                                                                                                   

The Court may order discovery of any fact relevant to the dispute. Relevant information need not to be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

The appropriate standard of review is a deferential “combination of all factors”

The de novo is a proper standard of review in case in which denial of benefits covered by ERISA. In Glenn V. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Supreme Court held that a plan administrator who evaluate and pays claims operate under a conflict of interest. The Court found that such dual role was subject to a conflict of interest and must weight the conflict as a factor in determining an abuse of discretion. The Court did not adopt a rule whereby the reviewing Court must always apply a less deferential standard of review in cases in which conflict of interest existed.  

Conflict of Interest in long term disability claim

Can Court ignore conflict of interest in the long term disability benefits denial decision process?

Kathreen M. Hackett worked for Mileage Plus Inc. (MPI) situated at Rapid City, South Dakota from last 14 years as a Customer Service Supervisor. She was covered by disability insurance offered by Standard. On September 28, 2002, she was disabled due to effects of brain hemorrhage. She underwent emergency surgery by a neurologist, Dr. James Nabwangu. After eleven days she was discharged with instructions to follow up.

On December 3, 2002, she complained that she was getting extremely tired after seven hrs of work. Although, she able to improve her ability to focus. She was able to work on computer.

Hackett’s internist Dr. James Bowman noted that she had slight headache problem in earlier days. But on January 15, 2003, Hackett stated to Dr. Bowman that when she worked on the computer, her problem of headache increased. On March 21, 2003, Dr. Bowman mentioned that she was unable to focus on her job. She still suffers from occasional headaches.

On February 28, 2003 Hackett applied for “own occupation” disability benefits because she was unable to perform her duties as a Customer Service Supervisor.  And same was approved by Standard on May 1, 2003 for the period from December 26, 2002 to January 17, 2003.

Can administrator of the insurance plan abuse its discretion in denying long term disabilities benefits?

Its all depend upon the disability attorneys who interpret the language of the insurance policy. Can plan administrator adhere to his denial decision without any supportive evidence? Can he allow to neglect evidence in support of participant claim? Answer to all this questions you will find in this article.

Mr. Dale W. Gordon brought the lawsuit against Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) in U.S.District Court, Division Minnesota. Court pronounced final judgment on March 18, 2009.

Let’s see how the Gordon’s disability attorneys found the clues from provision of the policy and how they interpreted the Gordon’s medical reports.

Gordon joined Northwest Airlines on 1998 at the age of 49 years.  His main problem started when he felt pain in his left knee in end of 2002. His orthopedist, Dr. Joseph T. Teynor advised to take MRI. In MRI report, it showed a tear in the meniscus and degenerative changes. In next visit Teynor drew fuid off of Gordon’s knee and injected with a corticosteroid. He described Gordon as majorly symptomatic.