This article is designed to serve as a “basic” guide for the
practitioner to use when faced with the denial of an ERISA governed LTD
benefit claim.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C § § 1001 et seq. (ERISA), is the federal statutory framework that governs most private sector “employee benefit plans.”
ERISA classifies employee benefit plans into one of two categories: (1)
pension plans, or (2) welfare plans. Pension plans include all types of
pension benefits, such as deferred profit sharing, stock purchasing or
savings and thrift plans. Welfare plans include employer-sponsored
health benefits, disability benefits, death benefits, prepaid legal
services, vacation benefits, daycare centers, scholarship funds,
apprenticeship, training benefits, or other similar benefits.[i]
Discretionary benefits or payroll practices, such as vacation time,
holiday pay, overtime premiums, holiday gifts and bonuses fall outside
the scope of ERISA.
A claimant challenging
the denial of a LTD benefit that was “established or maintained” by an
employer must bring the claim under ERISA. All other state law remedies
are preempted. The claimant must exhaust all internal review procedures
offered by the plan before filing suit.
STEP 1: TO OBTAIN AND REVIEW
The first step
the practitioner should take in evaluating the denial of a LTD claim is
to obtain and review the following materials:
1. Disability Plan Document—The
Disability Plan Document (“the Plan”) is the insurance policy. It is a
legal document, which states all of the employees’ rights and
obligations for benefits.
2. Summary Plan Description (“SPD”)—The
SPD is a summary of the Disability Plan Document. It describes the plan
in plain language. It specifies the employee’s rights and obligations
concerning the administration of the plan.[i] [ii]
3. Denial Notice
–ERISA requires the plan administrator to notify the beneficiary of the
specific grounds for the denial, the manner in which the denial can be
reviewed, and additional information that would be useful in
reconsidering the decision. The denial notice will refer to the
specific plan language used as the basis for the denial. It is
therefore the best place to start when evaluating a denial of benefits
claim.
4. All medical records (including medical records related to medical history).
5. Plan Amendments—Because
most companies reserve the right to modify, amend, suspend or delete,
in whole or in part, any or all of the provisions of the company’s LTD
plan, it is important to obtain and review all plan amendments.
STEP 2: PLAN PROVISIONS
Once the necessary materials have been received, it is important to pay particular attention to the following plan provisions:
1. Definition of Disability—
Depending on the way in which the plan defines “disability” will often
mean the difference between benefits and no benefits. Thus, it is
probably the most important provision of any LTD plan. LTD plans
usually define “disability” in one of three ways: (1) own
occupation--unable to perform the material duties of the claimants own or regular occupation; (2) any occupation--unable to perform the material duties of any
occupation; or (3) experience level--unable to perform the material
duties of any occupation to which the claimant is qualified by reason
of education, training or experience.
2. Time Limits—Time limits are critical and must be strictly followed. Failure to do so may completely bar the claim.
3. Elimination Periods—The elimination period is the time that must elapse before a claimant can become eligible for benefits.
4. Pre-existing Conditions—Pre-existing conditions are typically excluded. However,
on occasion, benefits will become payable for a pre-existing condition
which exists on the effective date of the policy once the claimant has
been covered under the plan for a set period of time.
5. The Length of Disability Benefits—Each policy is different with respect to the length of time a claimant is entitled to receive LTD benefits.
6. Internal Appeals (Administration)—This provision is extremely important since the Courts have routinely found that claimants must exhaust administrative remedies prior to initiating Court Action.
7. Mental and Nervous Limitations—Most
LTD plans distinguish between mental and/or nervous limitations and
physical limitations. Because many physical disabilities have mental
effects such as depression, claims administrators often use the mental
and nervous limitation provision of the policy as a way to cut-short
benefits. It is therefore important to make sure that the treating
physician clearly indicates that any mental or nervous disorders are
secondary to the physical disability.
8. Offset Provisions—Offset
provisions provide that the claimant's monthly benefit will be reduced
by other income, such as Workers’ Compensation benefits, Social
Security Disability benefits, retirement benefits, money received from
a third-party lawsuit, money received from a personal insurance policy,
and money earned for any work done while disabled from the job.
9. Exclusions—
Like all insurance policies, LTD plans contain a number of exclusions,
such as: war-related injuries; injuries arising out of self-employment;
injuries sustained during the commission of a crime; self-inflicted
injuries; and pre-existing conditions.
10. When Coverage Ends—The plan will define when disability coverage ends. Occasionally, the administrator will rely on this provision as a justification for denying benefits.
STEP 3: INTERNAL REVIEW
If
a claim for benefits is denied, ERISA requires that the claimant be
adequately informed of the denial, the basis for the denial, and the
review procedure.[i]
Likewise, ERISA requires that there be a “full and fair review by the
appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.” Thus,
all ERISA plans will have an internal appeal process, which spells out
exactly what to do “internally” if a claim is denied, in whole or in
part. It is imperative that the internal review process be followed and
exhausted prior to initiating court action.
STEP 4: THE RECORD
The “record” is complete at the close of the internal administrative process. Thus, the only
evidence that a Court will review is the “administrative record” that
was before the Plan Administrator at the time the decision to deny the
benefits was made. Failure to load the record during the
internal process is the most common mistake claimants’ attorneys make
when attempting to handle an ERISA governed LTD claim.
STEP 5: THE FIDUCIARY
ERISA imposes “fiduciary”
status on anyone who exercises decision-making authority with regard to
plan benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1133(2) and 29 CFR 2560.503-1(g) requires
that each ERISA plan have a “named fiduciary.” The named fiduciary is
typically the insurer in plans that are fully insured, and the Employer
in plans that are self-funded.
STEP 6: COURT ACTION
Only after the appeals process has been exhausted, can a civil action be initiated. Among the possible defendants are: The Plan Administrator; Plan Sponsor; employer; or anyone else with “fiduciary” status (i.e., decision making authority).
ERISA jurisdiction rests exclusively with the federal district courts.
Venue provisions are rather lenient and give the claimant the choice of
filing where he or she lives, where the Plan Administrator or employer
is located, or where the claim arose.
The
standard of judicial review varies from circuit to circuit (and often
court to court) depending on whether the plan administrator has a
“clear” grant of discretion to determine benefits. If the administrator
has a “clear” grant of discretion than the courts will employ a
deferential standard of review, and the plan administrator’s decision
will be upheld unless the court finds its decision to be “arbitrary and capricious.” Absent a clear grant of discretion, the courts will review the administrator’s decision “de novo.” Because the applicable standard of review often determines the outcome of the case, claimants naturally seek a de novo standard, whereas the defendants argue for an arbitrary and capricious standard of review.[i]
STEP 7: RELIEF
If
successful, participants or beneficiaries are generally entitled to
equitable relief, i.e., the payment of benefits due under the policy.
Extra-contractual damages are not available—including compensatory and
punitive damages.[ii] There is no right to a jury trial under ERISA.
STEP 8: ATTORNEY FEES
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1132(g), a district court is given broad discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees in an ERISA action.[i] In determining whether to award fees and costs, the 6th Circuit has adopted a five-factor test: (1)
the degree of the opposing party’s culpability or bad faith; (2) the
opposing party’s ability to satisfy an award of attorneys’ fees; (3)
the deterrent effect of an award on other persons under similar
circumstances; (4) whether the party requesting fees sought to confer a
common benefit on all participants and beneficiaries of an ERISA plan
or resolve significant legal questions regarding ERISA; and (5) the
relative merits of the partys’ positions.[ii]
STEP 9: PRE- AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST
Although
ERISA does not mandate the award of pre-judgment interest to prevailing
plan participants, the 6th Circuit has long recognized that the
district court may do so at its discretion in accordance with general
equitable principles.[iii]
An award of pre-judgment interest serves to compensate the court
beneficiary for their lost interest value of money wrongly withheld
from him or her.”[iv]
With respect to post-judgment interest, 28 U.S.C. § 1961 mandates that
post-judgment interest be allowed on all money judgments.
CONCLUSION
ERISA
claims are laden with complex legal and procedural hurdles. The case
law interpreting the statute is frequently changing. Thus, when
undertaking one of these cases, a much more detailed analysis is
required than the basics set forth in this article. For those of you
who have not yet handled an ERISA-based claim, we recommend you contact
an ERISA attorney before agreeing to undertake one of these matters.
[i] 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1)
[i] Specifically, 29 U.S.C. §1133 states:
In accordance with regulations of the Secretary, every employee benefit plan shall –
(1)
provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary
whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth
the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to
be understood by the participant, and
(2)
afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for
benefits has been denied for full and fair review by the appropriate
named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim.
[i] In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch,
189 U.S. 101, 115 (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States stated
that an administrator’s decision to deny benefits is reviewed under a de novo
standard unless the plan provides the administrator with “discretionary
authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the
terms of the plan.” This does not mean, however, that in order to find
such authority the plan must use the term “discretionary” or some other
specific terminology. Rather, the 6th Circuit has required that a plan
contain a “clear” grant of discretion to the administrator. Hoover v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.Co., unreported, 2002 WL 10124881 (6th Cir.); citing Weulf v. Quantum Chem. Corp., 26 F.3d, 1368, 1373 (6th Cir. 1994). Hoover
is the most recent pronouncement from the 6th Circuit and provides for
an excellent analysis with respect to the standard of review to be
applied in an ERISA governed denial of benefit case.
[i] See, Maurer v. Joy Techs., Inc., 212 F.3d 907, 919 (6th Cir. 2000).
[iii] Ford v. Uniroyal Pension Plan, 154 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 1998).
Andrew S. Goldwasser oversees the firm’s Personal Injury and insurance practice group. Mr.
Goldwasser handles a variety of civil litigation matters with an
emphasis on catastrophic personal injuries and wrongful death. He also focuses much of his practice on insurance bad faith claims and ERISA litigation.
Phillip A. Ciano oversees the firm’s Corporate and Complex Litigation practice group. Within
this arena, Mr. Ciano represents a variety of individuals,
corporations, physicians and physician practice groups in commercial
and employment-related transactions and complex litigation. He also focuses much of his practice on class actions, including mass torts.