Disability claims can involve different legal rules even when they arise from the same period of illness. In McGovern v. Hartford Insurance Co., a federal magistrate judge in Colorado recommended dismissing state-law claims concerning short-term and long-term disability benefits, but also recommended allowing the claimant to amend her complaint to plead claims under ERISA.
The claimant alleged disabling fatigue, COVID-related illness, a seizure and car accident, post-concussion symptoms, vertigo, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, brain fog, and cognitive problems. She sued without counsel and relied on several Colorado insurance statutes. Hartford moved for judgment on the pleadings.
The STD allegations raised a timing problem
The magistrate judge read the complaint as applying two Colorado unreasonable-delay and denial statutes to both STD and LTD benefits. For the STD portion, the recommendation found that the claimant should have known of any earlier delay or denial by April 7, 2022, when she learned a disability claim had been approved. Filing suit in July 2025 fell outside the two-year state limitations period.
The claimant sought equitable tolling based on Long COVID, stress, and incapacity. The recommendation found the pleaded facts insufficient because Hartford had not caused the illness or concealed the alleged conduct, and the claimant said her abilities resumed by April 2024. This was a pleading-stage analysis under Colorado law, not a finding that illness can never affect a filing deadline.
ERISA controlled the LTD plan
The parties agreed that U.S. Bank established the group LTD plan for eligible employees and that ERISA governed it. The magistrate judge concluded that Colorado’s delay-and-denial remedies were not saved from ERISA preemption. Although the statutes targeted insurers, they supplied additional remedies without substantially changing the plan’s risk pool or benefit terms.
Because the operative complaint pleaded state-law theories, the recommendation did not decide whether Hartford violated ERISA. It recommended allowing the claimant to amend and assert one or more ERISA claims. Hartford’s exhaustion argument was left for later, after an ERISA claim had actually been pleaded.
The procedural posture matters
McGovern is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, which is not itself a final district-court judgment. It did not determine disability, exhaustion, or entitlement to LTD benefits. Its practical lesson is narrower: identify which benefit program is involved, check the governing deadline, and plead an ERISA remedy when an employer-sponsored LTD plan falls under ERISA.
Source: McGovern v. Hartford Insurance Co., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166607 (D. Colo. June 24, 2026) (subscription may be required).
Feden Law Group can help assess an ERISA disability denial, administrative appeal, or federal court issue. Learn about our disability practice or schedule an initial consultation.
You can also explore the FLG Claim Analyst (Beta).
This article provides general information, not legal advice. Reading it or requesting a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship.