Pillsbury & Coleman, LLP
We can help you, call or email us today
415.655.1549
or toll free 866.460.7279

Over Two Decades Of Holding Insurance Companies Accountable

9th Circuit case considers disability benefits

Recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals released a decision that may have a significant impact upon long-term disability insurance matters in California. The ruling could potentially limit some of the power that insurance companies have to deny claims for benefits.

The case concerned a woman who worked for Boeing. As a benefit of employment, the employee was covered by a health and wellness plan provided to those who worked for the company. The plan had a clause that allowed Aetna, the insurance company that handled the health and wellness plan, substantial discretion when deciding whether or not an individual qualified as disabled.

In 2004, the woman was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. The condition took a serious toll on the woman’s health, and in 2009, she applied for short-term disability benefits under the plan. This request was approved, and a more detailed review was conducted to determine if she should receive long-term disability benefits. This review determined that she qualified for these benefits, and she began to receive payments.

After about a year, Aetna informed the woman that the standard used to determine disability would change. She would have to submit materials from her doctors again that showed she would meet this new standard.

The report from the woman’s doctors was then submitted to two other physicians for review. One concluded that it would be impossible for her to perform any work, while the other stated that she would be able to perform certain tasks with no restrictions or limitations. Based on this second review, the insurance company rejected her disability benefits claim.

This resulted in substantial litigation between the parties. At issue in this case, was whether or not a particular California statute applied to the woman’s insurance policy. Since this was a plan provided by an employer, it falls under the ERISA laws. However, there is an exclusion clause in ERISA that allows states to regulate insurance matters.

This clause means that the California statute would apply in the woman’s case. That statute says that if an insurance policy has a discretionary clause, that is where the insurer determines whether or not benefits are paid, that clause is held to be invalid. Because the court ruled that this statue applies, the courts must use a different standard when reviewing the woman’s claims.

What this means for you

This ruling could mean that those individuals who have their claims for benefits denied get a much better opportunity to challenge those decisions by insurers. Individuals who find themselves in a similar position should consult an experienced insurance law attorney to determine if they may have a case.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Visit Our Video Center

Email Us For A Response

Contact Us

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Phone Number

PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP

600 Montgomery Street
Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94111

Phone: 415-655-1549
Phone: 415-433-8000
Phone: 415-655-1549
Fax: 415-433-4816
Map & Directions

Connect With Us Online