Reliance's Termination of Disability Benefits was Arbitrary and Capricious When it Discounted Supporting Medical Evidence Without Reason
In Leo Noga v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Reliance), Plaintiff, a financial advisor with Fulton Financial, stopped working on February 27, 2015. At the time, he was covered under a disability insurance policy issued by Reliance. The terms of the policy granted Reliance the discretion to determine benefit eligibility. Those covered must submit satisfactory proof of total disability in order to qualify for long term disability (LTD) benefits.
Total disability as defined by the policy means that as a result of an injury or sickness, the insured “cannot perform the material duties of his/her Regular Occupation.” The Regular Occupation is defined as the occupation the insured “is routinely performing when Total Disability begins.”
Although Plaintiff’s job as a financial advisor with Fulton was sedentary, it also required him to stand or walk for brief periods and required him to drive to client meetings. He applied for total disability benefits based on the diagnoses of neurogenic muscular atrophy, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and hypertension. He had “leg weakness” and he reported to Reliance that “I cannot drive to work, can’t stand, walking limited.”
On August 25, 2015, Reliance approved Plaintiff’s claim for total disability benefits. The approval was based on Plaintiff’s medical records that were reviewed by its in-house medical reviewer, Nurse Finnegan. In addition, Reliance management reviewed “this matter” and agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to total disability benefits.
On August 15, 2017, Plaintiffs file was referred for review to another member of Reliance’s medical staff, Nurse Moore. She recommended that Reliance obtain pharmacy records and “medical records from all actively treating providers.”
The additional records were reviewed by Nurse Vicho, who noted Plaintiff suffered from “persistent diabetic neuropathy on lower legs along with contained painful left shoulder following rotator cuff repair. Co-morbid with chronic fatigue, poor endurance and obesity.”
Nurse Moore requested an independent medical examination (IME) which was conducted by Dr. Kline who concluded that Plaintiff exaggerated his symptoms and would be capable of gainful employment with some restrictions.
Based on Dr. Kline’s report, on December 27, 2017, Reliance notified Plaintiff that his total disability benefits were terminated. On January 2, 2018, Plaintiff appealed the termination and submitted additional medical records. In January and February 2018, he was evaluated by three treating physicians. All opined that Plaintiff could not work.
Reliance had another member of its medical staff, Nurse Toth, review the new medical records. She concluded that Plaintiff could not work due to his “multiple symptoms related to his neuropathy.” Based on this opinion, on March 22, 2018, the claims manager, Jamil Jackson, informed Plaintiff the decision to terminate benefits was overturned and benefits were reinstated effective December 27, 2017.
One day later, On March 23, 2018, Jackson requested two peer reviews of Plaintiff’s medical records. Dr. Brathwaite, Board Certified in Internal Medicine, issued an opinion on April 4, 2018, that Plaintiff’s diabetes was well-controlled, but she deferred giving an opinion on whether his diabetic peripheral neuropathy affected his ability to work.
Dr. Ayyar, Board Certified in Occupational Medicine, reviewed the medical file and concluded that although Plaintiff suffered from peripheral neuropathy and lower extremity neuromuscular dystrophy, the conditions were not severe enough to keep him from working.
Based on the peer review report by Dr. Ayyay, on May 18, 2018, Reliance informed Plaintiff that its prior decision to terminate benefits was appropriate. Plaintiff then filed an ERISA lawsuit.
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that “After a thorough examination of the administrative record, I find that Reliance acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied [Plaintiff’s] disability benefits.”
Standard of Review: Arbitrary and Capricious
Relying on precedent, the Court noted that the deferential standard of review applied to this case which means the Court “is not free to substitute its own judgment for that of the defendants in determining eligibility for plan benefits.” But, “irregularities in the review process cast doubt on the administrator’s impartiality.” A few procedural “anomalies that suggest arbitrariness include:”
- Reversing a decision to award benefits without new medical evidence to support the change.
- Relying on opinions of non-treating over treating physicians without providing reasons.
- Conducting self-serving paper reviews of medical files.
The Court stated that “In determining whether a benefits determination is arbitrary and capricious, the court must evaluate whether the determination was reasonable. After a review of the administrative record, I find Reliance’s benefits determination was not reasonable and therefore, was arbitrary and capricious.”
Evidence Supporting Court’s Decision that Reliance’s Denial was Arbitrary and Capricious
Reliance rejected, without reasons, “the opinions of its own nurses and claims manager regarding [Plaintiff’s] disability and rejected the opinion of [Plaintiff’s] treating physician and its nurses without explaining the justification.”
The Court was particularly concerned that just one day after Reliance relied on the conclusion of its employee, Nurse Toth, that Plaintiff could not function on any work level and reinstated his benefits, the claims manager sought another peer review. The Court inferred that “reliance was seeking an opinion that would allow them to overturn the decision to reinstate [Plaintiff’s] benefits.”
The Court concluded that the appropriate remedy for the arbitrary and capricious actions of Reliance was to retroactively award benefits and stated, “I find as of December 27, 2017, the date his benefits were terminated [Plaintiff] was totally disabled.”
The Court also ordered Reliance to pay prejudgment interest as part of Plaintiff’s benefit award.
This case was not handled by our office, but we think it can be helpful for those who have had their benefits terminated shortly after they were reinstated. If you have questions about this case, or any questions about your own disability claim, contact one of our disability attorneys at Dell & Schaefer for a free consultation.
Resources to Help You Win Disability Benefits
Submit a Strong Reliance Standard Appeal Package
We work with you, your doctors, and other experts to submit a very strong Reliance Standard appeal.
Sue Reliance Standard
We have filed thousands of disability denial lawsuits in federal Courts nationwide against Reliance Standard.
Get Your Reliance Standard Disability Application Approved
Prevent a Reliance Standard Disability Benefit Denial
Negotiate a Reliance Standard Lump-Sum Settlement
Our goal is to negotiate the highest possible buyout of your long-term disability policy.
Policy Holder Rating
Short Term Disability Claim/Inconsistent to NO Communication
Staff Lie
Reply
Reliance Standard denied my LTD benefits because COVID-19 limited my ability to provide proof of continued disability.
Reply
Reliance Standard cut off my LTD benefits claiming I'm fit enough to work even though I'm more sick than before.
Reply
Reliance Standard notified me that my benefits were being stopped with no warning or reason.
Reply
I was receiving LTD from Reliance Standard due to breast cancer until they suddenly denied me my benefits.
Reply
Reliance Standard never answers or returns my calls, has not provided me my benefits, and falsely claims I never provided necessary paperwork.
Reply
Reliance Standard is unreasonably prolonging the transition from STD to LTD for my boyfriend.
Reply
Q: Are VA disability payments considered “other income” by Reliance Standard?
Q: Denied short term disability and need to file for long term with same insurer
Q: Will Reliance Standard reduce my LTD payments due to my pension benefits or rental income?
Q: Why is Reliance Standard trying to recover payments I was awarded through another company?
Q: Do I have to provide additional proof of my disability that's specifically requested by Reliance Standard?
Q: How do I access a copy of my STD policy with Reliance Standard?
Q: If I'm not receiving the SSDI benefits for my children from Reliance Standard due to custody, should my SSDI benefits increase?
Q: How can Reliance Standard not coordinate with both of my disability insurance policies?
How to Apply for Reliance Standard Disability Benefits & Top 5 Reasons for a Claim Denial
Why Must Your Disability Insurance Lawyer Understand Your Disabling Condition?
Disability Benefit Denial Reason #5 – Your Medical Evidence is Weak
Disability Benefit Denial Reason #4 - Your Doctor Is Misled By the Disability Company
Disability Benefit Denial Reason #3 - Video & Social Media Surveillance
How Do You Fight a Long-Term Disability Denial?
Disability Denial Reason #2 - Change of Disability Definition & Vocational Review
Disability Denial Reason #1 – Paper Review & IME
How does Reliance Standard deny long term disability benefits after paying for three years?
Reliance Standard overturned its previous denial of long term disability benefits for Texas Retail Store Manager
Reliance Standard overturned LTD denial for Tennessee Technology Sales Consultant
Reliance Standard overturns decision to deny long-term disability benefits to Paediatrician with Ovarian Cancer
Reliance Standard reinstates disability benefits to Project Manager
Reliance Standard Reinstates Benefits for Former Employee of Parent Company, Delphi Financial, Following Successful Appeal
Reliance Standard Overturns Denial of Benefits on Appeal After Claiming It Failed to Receive Medical Records
After sending claimant to a psychiatric IME, Reliance Standard realizes its decision to deny benefits was incorrect
Reviews from Our Clients






