Reliance Erred in Denying Disability Benefits When Physical Conditions Caused Disability
Patti Okuno was an art director with a clothing company when she developed a number of various symptoms, including extreme headaches, abdominal problems, vertigo and memory loss. She was diagnosed with narcolepsy, Crohn’s disease and Sjogren’s syndrome. Her medical records indicated that she also suffered with anxiety and depression.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (Reliance), both the payer of benefits and plan administrator, awarded her short term disability benefits, agreeing that she was disabled from working in her own occupation. After 12 months, the definition of disability changed and in order to receive long term disability benefits, she was required to be disabled from any occupation. The disability policy also had a provision that only provided 12 months of benefits if the total disability was “caused by or contributed to by a mental or nervous disorder.”
Reliance denied Okuno’s application for long term disability benefits on several grounds, ultimately claiming her anxiety and depression were mental disorders that disqualified her from receiving disability benefits past the 12 months they had already paid her. After Okuno exhausted her administrative appeals, she filed this ERISA lawsuit in the Ohio federal District Court. The Court agreed with Reliance and Okuno appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit agreed with Okuna that her physical ailments “are disabling when considered apart from mental component” and remanded for the District Court to evaluate how her physical ailments impacted “her performance of any occupation.”
The Mental or Nervous Disorders Limitation
The Circuit Court adopted decisions of other circuits that interpret the mental or nervous disorders limitations to apply only “when the claimant’s physical disability was insufficient to render him totally disabled.” The standard is “whether the mental disability is a but-for cause of the total disability.” Reliance argued that it applied this standard when denying Okuna long term benefits. The Circuit Court disagreed, finding that that “assertion is not supported by the administrative record.”
The Court noted that the burden of proof was not on the plaintiff, but on Reliance to “show that the exclusion on which it based denial of benefits, the Mental and Nervous Disorder Limitation applies in this case.” After applying the “but-for” inquiry, the Court found that “an application is not appropriately denied on the basis that a mental or nervous disorder ‘contributes to’ a disabling condition; rather, the effect of an applicant’s physical ailments must be considered separately to satisfy the requirement that review be reasoned and deliberate.” Since Reliance had not considered Okuna’s physical ailments separately from the mental and nervous disorders component, the decision was not “rational.” The Court reversed the decision denying her benefits on this ground.
Reliance Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously in Finding Plaintiff Was Not Physically Disabled
Reliance erred in several ways when evaluating Okuna’s physical disabilities:
· It relied exclusively on the use of file reviews by physicians it employed. File reviews are “questionable” when used to deny benefits where the claim has a mental illness component. Mental health evaluations are based on subjective symptoms and the evaluation depends on a personal interview and spending time with the claimant. Although Okuna did not base her application on a mental or nervous disorder, that was the basis of Reliance denying her claim; thus, an independent medical exam should have been conducted.
· The reviewing physicians did not have the relevant expertise in the specific field of medicine at issue. Further, none of them even interviewed the treating physicians. Reliance denied Okuna benefits based on a mental health component, but did not have her records reviewed by a mental health expert.
· Reliance arbitrarily rejected the opinions of the treating physicians without explaining why.
The Remedy
Okuna requested remand for a determination of “how her disability affects her performance of any occupation.” The Court concluded that was the appropriate remedy and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
This case was not handled by our firm, but we believe it is instructive for those struggling with both physical ailments with perhaps a mental or nervous disorder. If you need help with a similar matter, contact our 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






