At Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, we understand the intricate nature of long-term disability claims and appeals. The appeal process in a long-term disability claim is vital as it provides a platform for claimants to challenge an unfavorable decision made by the insurance company. Often, depending on the insurance policy terms, the appeal process is even required before you can file a lawsuit challenging the insurance company’s decision. However, the sophistication needed in these cases requires more than just a basic understanding. And, importantly, the way you communicate with the insurance company may likely be used against you.

DOES AI REALLY HELP YOUR CLAIM?

Technology often lacks the human emotion that may be necessary to humanize you for purposes of the appeal – or later, for the Court.

Although technology advancement, particularly AI, has brought convenience to many aspects of our lives, it’s important to tread carefully when considering its use in the claim or appeal process for long-term disability claims. While AI assistance might seem inviting due to its speed and ease, it lacks the human touch necessary for these complex endeavors. AI, by nature, lacks the empathy and insight inherent in human interaction. For those who are going through the distress of dealing with a disability, it may be difficult expressing their concerns or articulating their situation to the insurance company. AI likely won’t capture the full extent of what a disabled claimant suffers on a day-to-day basis.

Insurance companies often use communication skills, detailed summaries, and information from claimants as evidence to prove the ability to work. Machine-generated appeals or summaries may lack the necessary nuances or fail to fully capture the claimant’s situation. AI also lacks the ability to understand and convey emotions, a significant factor considering the individualized nature of disability claims. In such sensitive cases, human involvement and understanding are indispensable.

Insurance companies will often seize any angle they can to minimize or deny the payout for a claim. One particular approach that these companies have been known to employ involves the exploitation of concise, well-written summaries, emails, or medical records provided by a claimant. Moreover, they might even leverage such articulated documents that were compiled with the assistance of AI. For instance, the company might argue that the claimant is not disabled or ill to the extent they claim if they are capable of putting together a lengthy medical history or appeal. By suggesting that the very ability to write a comprehensive, structured document contradicts the severity of the claimed disability or medical condition, the company may try to avoid its obligations and refuse to approve benefits.

The insurance company may not even acknowledge its view of your “detailed” appeal until you receive the final denial letter that alleges you were able to communicate and provide detailed information. If this happens, it is unlikely that you will be able to defend yourself by explaining that you utilized AI to assist you because once the insurance company issues a final denial of your benefits, you may not be able to submit any additional information in support of your claim.

PITFALLS OF AI

AI is not perfect. There is absolutely room for error in the information it generates based on the inquiries you input. There is a significant risk that – without careful review – you may even unknowingly provide information to the insurance company that is simply wrong. By failing to catch incorrect information that AI generated for you, you may be subject to the incorrect information being used against you unfavorably by the insurance company. If the appeal process finalizes without this information being corrected, you are at risk of being bound to that information without a way to dispute it if you file a lawsuit. This, combined with the lack of human emotion, the risk of the insurance company using detailed communications in opposition to you, and the privacy concerns related to your information, demonstrate the dangers of relying on AI to support your claim.

It is important to be up-to-date on the software you are relying on. Is that information protected? Are there privacy concerns? You may unknowingly put your own privacy at risk by inputting your confidential medical and personal information in AI software.

CONTACT US TODAY FOR A FREE CONSULTATION

Professional advice and representation in these matters carry more weight than any AI can provide. Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers is ably equipped to navigate the complex terrain of disability claims and appeals. Our law firm provides personalized attention and drafts comprehensive appeals which articulate your story and situation compellingly. We keep abreast of the ever-evolving rules and regulations surrounding long-term disability claims, appeals, and ERISA to ensure we are always poised to fight for you.

Bear in mind, presenting well-articulated documentation is perfectly within your rights. If an insurance company tries to barter with such unscrupulous semantics, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers can help protect your rights and help you get the compensation you deserve. Reach out to us at (800) 249-3731 for a free consultation today.

Recently, a federal judge in Texas court ruled in favor of retired NFL player, Michael Cloud, determining that the administrators of The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (“Plan”) violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA in denying Cloud a full and fair application review. Cloud’s appeal concerned his eligibility for the highest level of disability benefits under the Plan, which was subsequently denied by the Defendants.

Cloud boasts an impressive NFL career, playing 7 seasons, including for the New England Patriots during their 2004 Super Bowl winning year. Cloud additionally played for the Kansas City Chiefs and the New York Giants between 1999 and his retirement in 2006. During his career, Cloud states that he injured “virtually every aspect of his body” as well as endured numerous cases of head trauma known as “dings” (an instance where a player’s vision goes black due to a hard hit to their head). One of Cloud’s last head injuries sustained in 2004 led to his early retirement, as the frequency and severity of the injuries had caused “cumulative mental disorders.” In 2010, Cloud began receiving benefits under the retirement Plan, and was found to be “totally and permanently” disabled in 2014. Subsequently, in 2016 Cloud applied for reclassification under the Plan but was denied both initially and on appeal.

Cloud brought an action against the Plan in 2020, alleging that his application for reclassification was never fully reviewed by the Defendants. He alleged that the Defendants (including six board members for the Plan) did not adequately review his over 1000-page application. Instead, a paralegal was made to write a summary of the application for the administrators. It has been speculated that the decision on the matter was already drafted before the administrators viewed the summary of the new appeal, as it cited to incorrect documents that belonged to the wrong benefits plan. Further, the denial letter included contradicting information with written minutes taken at the board meeting during their deliberation; the minutes state that the only reason for the denial was the Cloud did not show by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a new injury, while the letter additionally states that the application was made outside of a 180-day deadline among other timing issues. During closing arguments, counsel for Cloud stated that the issue of unfair denial is not new nor exclusive to Cloud, and that the Plan consistently failed to fully review applications by reviewing as many as 50 at a time with no discussion of the specific cases.

The Defendants argued that the payment of benefits was not appropriate, as Cloud did not sustain any new injuries between his first application in 2014 and his application for reclassification in 2016. They further opined that Cloud’s current benefits category was “exactly where he should be” and that he was one of the few beneficiaries to bring an action against the Plan.

The Court did not agree, stating that the denial was incorrect and Cloud’s reclassification application should be granted and he should be placed in the highest benefits category due to the injuries sustaining during his career. Judge Karen Gren Scholer stated that the Plan obviously spent “virtually no time in rubber-stamping the decision.” She further stated that the Plan’s practice of reviewing player’s applications was “wrong and absurd.” Regarding the argument that the low number of cases brought against the Plan is evidence that the decision was correct, Judge Scholer stated that this essentially constituted an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” argument and thus was rejected. She further speculated that it is incredible that under the Plan only 30 former players (all of whom have injuries causing paralysis) are at the highest benefit tier. Thus, she stated that, “The Plan is broke and it’s time to fix it.”

Both Cloud and his family are grateful that the long battle for benefits due to him under the Plan is finally over. Cloud described the Plan’s denial and its effects had “tortured [his] family for years without caring.” This decision is not only a victory for Cloud and his family, but other members of the same or similar retirement plans who have been denied full and fair review of applications by plan administrators. In fact, even outside of the realm of plans relating to former athletes, the decision solidifies the fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries under ERISA and sets the standard for individualized, thorough, and fair reviews of applications and benefit determinations.

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently certified a class of Plaintiffs under Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Co.’s disability benefits plan (“Plan”). The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants forced beneficiaries who had received payments for personal injury claims to send the payments back to the company in violation of ERISA.

The named Plaintiff, Joanne Wolff, first filed suit against Aetna in 2019 when the company asked for the repayment of over $50,000 in long-term disability benefits stemming from a temporary disability suffered by the Plaintiff after a car wreck. At the time of the request, Wolff told the Defendants that her employer, Bank of America, did not allow reimbursement, and negotiations ended in an agreement that that Wolff would pay $30,000 despite this fact.

This did not end the dispute, however, and Wolff along with an at least 48-member class now allege that Aetna violated ERISA when it required reimbursement payments of long-term personal injury disability payments. Aetna responded that class certification would be inappropriate, as the proposed class did not meet the specifications required for certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mainly, the Defendants argued that some of the members of the proposed class should be disqualified, thus the number of participants in the class did not meet the numerosity requirement. It argued that since some of the members of the class were from different companies, there was not sufficient typicality to fulfill the requirements under the Civil Rules and members under other employers should be disqualified, reducing the class number to 28. Aetna also argued that timing issues barred several more participants under the relevant statutes of limitations.

The Court disagreed, stating that the class size both exceeded the minimum number of members and that the benefit plans of each member were substantially similar, thus making certification appropriate under the Civil Rules. It was decided that the plans at issue contained similar enough language that the fact that the beneficiaries worked for different companies was irrelevant. Judge Matthew W. Brann stated, “Because Wolff meets all three concerns implicated by typicality, the court finds she had satisfied this requirement.” Regarding the argument that certain members were barred under statutes of limitations, the Court stated that this number was so few that it would not impact the ability for the class to be appropriately certified under the Civil Rules.

Therefore, Wolff and the class of members is permitted to move forward in federal court as all requirements have been satisfied. This decision is a victory not only for members of the class, but for participants in disability plans governed by ERISA. ERISA requires that plan administrators fulfill various fiduciary duties to their participants; when these duties are violated it is often done on a large scale and impacts participants across not only the specific company but under similar plans as well. This decision shows the importance of policy language and similarity between plans, creating the standard that when companies breach their duties to participants, an action may be brought under similar policy language rather than under the same employer. This provides the opportunity for recourse under ERISA to a wider range of plan participants, ensuring the fulfillment of benefits and accountability from administrators.

Recently, a federal judge in Texas court ruled in favor of retired NFL player, Michael Cloud, determining that the administrators of The Bert Bell/Pete Rozelle NFL Player Retirement Plan (“Plan”) violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA in denying Cloud a full and fair application review. Cloud’s appeal concerned his eligibility for the highest level of disability benefits under the Plan, which was subsequently denied by the Defendants.

Cloud boasts an impressive NFL career, playing 7 seasons, including for the New England Patriots during their 2004 Super Bowl winning year. Cloud additionally played for the Kansas City Chiefs and the New York Giants between 1999 and his retirement in 2006. During his career, Cloud states that he injured “virtually every aspect of his body” as well as endured numerous cases of head trauma known as “dings” (an instance where a player’s vision goes black due to a hard hit to their head). One of Cloud’s last head injuries sustained in 2004 led to his early retirement, as the frequency and severity of the injuries had caused “cumulative mental disorders.” In 2010, Cloud began receiving benefits under the retirement Plan, and was found to be “totally and permanently” disabled in 2014. Subsequently, in 2016 Cloud applied for reclassification under the Plan but was denied both initially and on appeal.

Cloud brought an action against the Plan in 2020, alleging that his application for reclassification was never fully reviewed by the Defendants. He alleged that the Defendants (including six board members for the Plan) did not adequately review his over 1000-page application. Instead, a paralegal was made to write a summary of the application for the administrators. It has been speculated that the decision on the matter was already drafted before the administrators viewed the summary of the new appeal, as it cited to incorrect documents that belonged to the wrong benefits plan. Further, the denial letter included contradicting information with written minutes taken at the board meeting during their deliberation; the minutes state that the only reason for the denial was the Cloud did not show by clear and convincing evidence the existence of a new injury, while the letter additionally states that the application was made outside of a 180-day deadline among other timing issues. During closing arguments, counsel for Cloud stated that the issue of unfair denial is not new nor exclusive to Cloud, and that the Plan consistently failed to fully review applications by reviewing as many as 50 at a time with no discussion of the specific cases.

The Defendants argued that the payment of benefits was not appropriate, as Cloud did not sustain any new injuries between his first application in 2014 and his application for reclassification in 2016. They further opined that Cloud’s current benefits category was “exactly where he should be” and that he was one of the few beneficiaries to bring an action against the Plan.

The Court did not agree, stating that the denial was incorrect and Cloud’s reclassification application should be granted and he should be placed in the highest benefits category due to the injuries sustaining during his career. Judge Karen Gren Scholer stated that the Plan obviously spent “virtually no time in rubber-stamping the decision.” She further stated that the Plan’s practice of reviewing player’s applications was “wrong and absurd.” Regarding the argument that the low number of cases brought against the Plan is evidence that the decision was correct, Judge Scholer stated that this essentially constituted an “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” argument and thus was rejected. She further speculated that it is incredible that under the Plan only 30 former players (all of whom have injuries causing paralysis) are at the highest benefit tier. Thus, she stated that, “The Plan is broke and it’s time to fix it.”

Both Cloud and his family are grateful that the long battle for benefits due to him under the Plan is finally over. Cloud described the Plan’s denial and its effects had “tortured [his] family for years without caring.” This decision is not only a victory for Cloud and his family, but other members of the same or similar retirement plans who have been denied full and fair review of applications by plan administrators. In fact, even outside of the realm of plans relating to former athletes, the decision solidifies the fiduciary duties owed to beneficiaries under ERISA and sets the standard for individualized, thorough, and fair reviews of applications and benefit determinations.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that under ERISA, the “deferential review” standard is not a one size fits all seal of approval for plan administrators’ reasoning in denying claims. The case giving rise to this decision is Garner v. Central States and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund Active Plan in which the Defendants denied the Plaintiff’s claim for the reimbursement of medical costs related to their back surgery. A court in North Carolina provided the original ruling in the case (later upheld by the Court of Appeals) that the plan at issue had “abused its discretion” in denying the claim.

The case boiled down to two significant issues relating to the determination that benefits would be denied, each addressed by the Court of Appeals. The first relates to the omission of an MRI scan in the documents to be analyzed by the first reviewing doctor in making their decision on the availability of benefits. This omission was held to be significant, as the results of the MRI were crucial to the Plaintiff’s treating doctor’s decision to operate. Secondly, no notes from the Plaintiff’s treating doctor relating to the decision to conduct surgery and discussion of the MRI were provided to the reviewing doctor.

The Plaintiff’s initial appeal was denied on the grounds that a second reviewing doctor had reached the same conclusions as the first. Thus, according to the Defendants, the lack of information provided to the first doctor did not preclude denial. The Court disagreed with this argument, stating that the issues with the first doctor’s review were not cured by the concurrence of the second doctor, as their opinion also misstated facts surrounding the Plaintiff’s need for surgery. As a result, the Court held that the Defendants’ denial of the claim was not “the result of a deliberate, principled, reasoning process.”

This conclusion provides that plan administrators were not acting in a “reasoned” or “principled” manner in their failure to provide the reviewing doctors with all of the relevant medical documents. The second doctor’s opinion misrepresented the facts of the Plaintiff’s treatment in relying on an incorrect belief that the Plaintiff had not attempted to undergo any “conservative” treatment prior to surgery, which in fact was untrue. On this aspect, the Court stated that a requirement that the Plaintiff undergo “conservative” treatment prior to surgery in order to receive benefits was incorrect and baseless. The Court stated that reading this into the Plan as a requirement would be “effectively … [adding] a new term to the plan, a term for which [the Plaintiff] did not bargain, and about which she lacked any notice.”

While the Court did not make a statement regarding bad faith on the part of the Defendants, they opted to uphold the lower court’s decision and require the Defendants to pay the claim rather than remand the case consistent with their opinion. With this decision, the Court of Appeals exemplifies that the discretion of plan administrators to determine how and why to deny plans is not unlimited. Further, if administrators do not provide reviewing doctors with all of the relevant medical information relating to a claim, this will be considered an abuse of discretion. In the same line of reasoning, administrators requiring that all “conservative” treatment options be tried and fail to correct the issue otherwise the claim will be denied is an abuse of discretion.

Lastly, the Court of Appeals highlights that if a determination of benefits does not align with a plan’s purpose, the underlying reasoning may be an abuse of discretion. The Plan at issue in this case was designated as a reimbursement plan for necessary medical services received by plan participants and their beneficiaries. The denial of benefits to the Plaintiff was in direct opposition to the purpose of the plan, thus the Defendants’ reliance on their ability to use discretion in administering the plan does not hold water.

This decision is a major win for ERISA policy holders, as it lays the foundation that plan administrators cannot unfairly deny claims and then rely on their ability to use discretion as grounds for doing so. ERISA holds plan administrators to fiduciary duties and provides that participants are entitled to a review of their claims that is thorough and fair. This decision solidifies the rights of plan participants, and correctly limits the ability of administrators to deny claims based on inadequate review processes.