A Minnesota court upheld targeted discovery into an alleged misrepresentation of a physician conversation. The ruling preserves the benefits claim’s record limits and leaves the fiduciary-duty claim’s merits unresolved.
Whitlock’s earnings loss met the policy threshold, but the court found insufficient proof of occupational limits. The decision shows why duties, duration, and continued work need clear supporting evidence.
A recent ERISA disability decision examines Hartford’s appeal handling, retraining assumptions, and proposed job demands. The court returned the claim for renewed review without ordering an immediate benefits award.
A California court upheld Unum’s termination of a lawyer’s disability benefits despite later diagnoses. The decision shows why medical evidence must explain specific work limitations at the time benefits ended.
Sedentary work can still require more speaking than a claimant can sustain. A recent Florida decision highlights why precise functional evidence and the policy’s governing law matter in an ERISA disability dispute.
A New Jersey court dismissed a Prudential disability complaint without prejudice, leaving ERISA coverage unresolved and identifying gaps in the allegations supporting benefits.
An Ohio court returned a Lincoln disability claim for renewed review, emphasizing psychiatric limitations and safety-sensitive work without awarding benefits.
A federal court held that Unum could not evaluate a securities lawyer’s long-term disability claim using the generic duties of an attorney. The decision shows why a plan’s exact occupational definition can shape both the claim analysis and the remedy.
An Oregon federal court reinstated long-term disability benefits after finding that limited hobbies, travel, and about ten minutes of observed outdoor activity did not establish capacity for sustained work. Zayn shows how longitudinal medical evidence puts isolated activities in context.
A Minnesota federal court upheld Aetna’s termination of long-term disability benefits after seven years of payment. Young shows why current functional evidence can matter when an ERISA insurer reexamines an established claim.
For the sick, injured, and disabled.
And guidance for everyone else.
(267) 234-7465
Fax: (350) 220-0842
nfeden@fedenlawgroup.com
711 West Ave., Jenkintown, PA 19046
This website provides general information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Representation begins only after a written agreement. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.