erisa law firm Tag

I’m a Physician with a Disability—What Can I Do to Protect Myself?

As a physician, you’re trained to solve complex problems under pressure.  You have worked hard for your career, and probably never expected to have to stop working due to a disability.  Perhaps you applied on your own for those benefits and the insurance carrier denied your claim, or perhaps you’re beginning the process of applying for long-term disability insurance benefits.  What can cause highly educated medical professionals to lose their long-term disability appeals?

It’s not a lack of intelligence. And it’s definitely not because you’re “not really disabled.”

In my work representing physicians and other high-income professionals, I’ve seen a frustrating pattern: doctors who rightfully file for disability benefits are denied just as frequently (and sometimes more so) as people who are not trained in medicine.

Here’s what’s going wrong, and how you can protect your livelihood and your future.

•  Doctors are often treated on an informal basis by their colleagues

Any professional with a large network of trusted colleagues will turn to them first when something in their field goes wrong.  That’s a given, and I get it.  My father was a general practitioner from 1969 until 2021, when he passed away, and he was my first, and often only, phone call when I or my family had a medical concern.  However, these initial, informal phone calls and diagnoses don’t make it into your medical records.  So while you may have a months- or years-long history of seeking medical advice for your ailment, the medical records may look as though you just started treatment for a condition that has now become disabling.  My first task with any of my clients in the medical field is to request their complete relevant medical records, so that I can ascertain how supported their disability is within the records that the insurer will review.  And if those records are incomplete or sparse, I develop a strategy, through declarations, letters, or any other means, to make sure that the true course of treatment is documented in the long-term disability claim file.

• Insurers may use narrow definitions of “Disabled” for doctors

If you’re a surgeon who can’t operate anymore, that may seem clearly disabling to you. But your policy might say otherwise—especially if it’s a group policy through your hospital or medical group.

Many doctors are shocked to learn that their policy allows the insurer to deny benefits if they can do any work in a related field, such as consulting or teaching.

What to do: Get a copy of your full policy—not just the summary. A legal review by Springer Ayeni can help uncover how your “own occupation” is actually defined.

• Doctors may think it’s better to scale back to part-time rather than filing a disability benefit claim

In my experience, physicians and other professionals who have dedicated their lives to developing their expertise through education and practice, are incredibly determined to hang onto even part of their work rather than file a claim under disability insurance policies.  Why?  Because you have worked for your entire life to become a physician, and you may have even set that personal goal when you were just a child.  My father never retired as a physician, and even when he became frail and sick, he kept working, forsaking all else, until shortly before he passed.  For those of us who truly enjoy helping others in our profession, we may not even contemplate retirement, let alone leaving the practice much earlier than expected due to a disability.  

Unfortunately, long-term disability insurers often operate under what I have dubbed the “hit by a bus theory,” where one day you are fully capable of performing your job without limitation, then you get “hit by a bus,” and the next day you are disabled.  Most disabilities are not so straightforward, and many physicians continue working as long as they can with progressive disabilities,.  

If you have strived in your profession for years and years, then your medical condition causes you to lose some capacity, you might start by scaling back your hours, or switching to more administrative tasks.  Before making this kind of career move, please give me a call at 510-926-6768, so I can discuss the strategy of whether you might qualify for long-term disability benefits, and what the impact of switching job duties or reducing hours might be on an eventual disability claim.  

What to do:  Call me to discuss your disability and the terms of your benefit plan as soon as possible so that you can develop a strategy for whether, and how, you might either scale back your duties, file for disability benefits to replace your lost income, or both.  Ironically, disability insurers often scrutinize partial disability claims harder than total disability claims, seeming to punish those who have tried heroically to keep working despite disabling limitations.  I am here to help and advise, and I encourage you to let me help you make an informed decision about reducing your hours or filing a disability claim.

• Medical Records or Treating Physician Forms Alone Usually Aren’t Enough

Insurers don’t just want to know your diagnosis. They want to see how your condition limits your ability to perform your specific job duties.  In the ultimate “gotcha,” however, insurance forms for treating physicians to fill out either don’t ask the right question (“how”) or don’t leave enough room for your doctor to answer that question thoroughly.  Stating an ICD Code and a condition, like “long-COVID,” “Parkinson’s Disease,” “Mild Cognitive Disorder,” “Major Depressive Disorder,” or “Migraine,” etc., is insufficient to prevail on a claim for disability benefits.  You and your doctor need to explain how your condition affects your ability to specific tasks in your practice, such as stand during rounds, hold your arms in the correct position during surgery, respond adequately to emergencies, work a nightshift or be on-call, or manage a high-stress practice.

What I suggest:  Work with your treating doctor to create a detailed functional report—not just a chart note, by writing down a list of what specific job duties are affected by your disability, and going over that list with your treating physician.  It’s best if your medical records can be as detailed as possible about what you are unable to do at work. Also, the boxes on insurance forms are not a limitation!  Put in an asterisk and attach a supplemental page or 2 to submit as much helpful information as possible.

• Doctors Are Prime Targets for Surveillance

High-income professionals like doctors are often watched, because they are expensive claims for the insurer to pay. A short video of you walking, driving a distance longer than your restrictions permit, shopping in a store, or attending your child’s sports game can be twisted to argue you’re not truly disabled.

What to do:  Make sure all of your social media settings are set to “private.”  Be mindful of what you do in public and what your restrictions and limitations are.  Be honest in disclosing your actual activities on forms.  For example, if your physician has recommended exercise to improve your disabling conditions, make sure you state on your application or update forms what you do and why it was prescribed by your doctor.  If benefits have been denied, be sure to request and review all surveillance footage so that you can include context for what was actually happening on that day.  Judges ultimately appreciate context, and understand that there may be anomalous events that do not necessarily mean that you can return to the full-time practice of medicine.  While insurers may be looking for a “gotcha,” have faith that most judges are wise enough to see the big picture. 

• ERISA is brutally technical

The ERISA process has strict rules. You often get only one appeal to submit your evidence, and it must be submitted by a specific date or you lose your right to the claim.  Moreover, if you miss including key documents, you may not have the chance to get that evidence in front of the court if you later go to court.

What to do: Don’t wait until after your appeal is denied to consult a lawyer. The best time to get legal help is before you submit your appeal—when there’s still time to shape the record.  Reach out to me at www.benefitslaw.com or 510-926-6768 and I would be happy to discuss your specific issue with you in more detail.

Read More

The Elephant in the Room: Can AI Really Handle Your ERISA Disability Claim and Appeal?

Why Turning to a Bot for Legal Advice Could Hurt Your Claim—And What You Deserve Instead

Let’s be honest: more and more people are asking AI tools like ChatGPT or Google’s Gemini how to appeal a denied disability claim before they ever think of calling a lawyer.

I get it. AI is fast. It’s available 24/7. It doesn’t require talking with a live person about the difficult details of your health.  And, of course, AI is free or low-cost.

But when your financial stability and health are on the line, you need to know the full truth: AI is not a substitute for experienced legal counsel.  In fact, trusting AI blindly could do more harm than good.

As someone who has spent 23 years representing clients in ERISA disability cases, I’m not here to bash technology.  There is much to gain from the efficiency of evolving technology and I am certainly not advocating AI abstinence.  I am here, however, to lay out the risks, differences, and reasons why having a compassionate, strategic, and knowledgeable attorney matters for something as critical to your financial health as your long-term disability benefits.

Why People Turn to AI—and Where It Falls Short

If you type into ChatGPT:

“How do I appeal a denied ERISA disability claim?”

You’ll probably get something like this:

“Request your claim file. Review the denial letter. Submit additional medical evidence. Write an appeal within 180 days.”  You might even get general “advice” about including medical records and statements in support of your appeal.  However, even AI knows its own limitations.  A common Bot disclaimer goes something like this:

“Generative AI features are not intended for professional advice. Do not use generative AI features to seek or provide legal, medical, financial, or other kinds of professional advice or any opinions, judgments, or recommendations without conducting your own independent consultation or research. Generative AI features cannot replace advice provided by a qualified professional and do not form any such relationship (e.g., attorney-client relationship).” (https://www.adobe.com/legal/licenses-terms/adobe-gen-ai-user-guidelines.html)

Even tech giants know that the disclaimer is necessary because AI advice is not strategic, not confidential, not detailed, and, in fact, is dangerously simplistic.

For example, AI does not, and cannot, analyze whether your plan’s language requires a de novo or abuse of discretion standard of review in court; whether the facts of your case meet the definition of disability under your plan language; whether the insurer has disclosed all required information in its claim file; whether there is evidence of biased claims handling in your file; whether the insurer has calculated offsets accurately in your case; what evidence in the claim file needs to be rebutted in an appeal; what the likelihood of settlement and possible settlement amount in litigation might be.  The list goes on and on.  These are the kinds of distinctions that change the outcome of a case—and they’re not in an AI’s toolbox.  

The bottom line: AI gives you non-confidential general advice.  Springer Ayeni gives you a legal strategy based on decades of experience handling ERISA long-term disability cases.

AI “Hallucinations” and Fake Law: A Dangerous Trend

AI tools are known for hallucinating legal citations—that is, making up case law that sounds real but isn’t. See https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries  I’ve read up on examples of how AI will generate completely fictitious case references and quotes from decisions that don’t exist.  This isn’t just sloppy, it’s dangerous.

First, if you submit an appeal letter to an insurer or judge citing bogus cases, you undermine your credibility.  Second, insisting that there are cases in your favor when you reach out to an attorney, when those cases are entirely fictious (unbeknownst to you), will make an attorney hesitant to offer to represent you.  Attorneys and their clients should be on the same team at all times. Most importantly, you won’t even know when AI has done you dirty with a fictitious citation, because it often sounds right and the wrong cases are mixed right in with actual cases.  

The bottom line: Legal writing is not just writing. It’s advocacy, precision, and ethics.  AI is still a baby in the world of law, and cannot be trusted to do actual legal research.

AI Is NOT Confidential, and that Can Put You at Risk

AI is not a lawyer. It doesn’t form an attorney-client relationship, as all of the tech User Guidelines state. That means: 

1. There is no legal confidentiality. What you input may be stored, analyzed, or even discoverable later.  
2. You might waive privilege by sharing facts about your medical condition, employment, or insurer.  Moreover, AI remembers your input from search to search, so even if you don’t share all the facts in one session, it may know a lot more about you, your condition, your family, your history, your dreams, and your goals from all of the data you have input in previous searches.
3. There is no duty of loyalty. AI doesn’t protect your interests—it just completes a task.  For example, when Chat GPT conversations are shared, Google produces those conversations as “results” upon a simple search.  See https://cybernews.com/ai-news/chatgpt-shared-links-privacy-leak/ 

As an attorney, I never input confidential client information into AI platforms. Doing so risks ethical breaches and the security of your case. Some lawyers are misusing AI and unknowingly exposing clients. That’s not how I work.

If I use AI at all, it’s only for mundane administrative tasks—not for case strategy, legal analysis, or communication. 

The bottom line: Your trust is sacred. And your privacy is non-negotiable. AI will not protect you and advocate for you like a good attorney will.

A Real Appeal Tells the Real Story—Not Just the Medical One

An AI might focus only on lab results and doctor notes. But I know that winning a disability appeal requires telling your whole story, not just summarizing medical visits.  It also requires understanding the law and how it applies to the facts of your case, and being able to spot and rebut flaws in the insurer’s claims handling and medical reviews.

I listen for and translate the truths that often don’t make it into a medical file, like how your fatigue crashes your productivity by noon, or how your brain fog makes multi-step tasks impossible not just at work but in your everyday life, or how your anxiety prevents you from completing your tasks efficiently, or even how you have good days and bad days, requiring you to rest for days if you have over-exerted yourself on a good day.  

I draw out the details of your daily life, your work history, and your limitations, and I explain them clearly and persuasively to the insurance company. This isn’t something a chatbot can do. It takes time, training, empathy, experience, and sound judgment.

The bottom line: I’m not just reviewing records. I’m building your narrative, filling gaps in the file, rebutting arguments, and fighting for your future.

AI Can’t Show Up for You. I Will.

Some pundits say AI will replace lawyers. I do think that technology can make lawyers more efficient at administrative tasks that take away from time spent on actual cases.  However, the best lawyers, those who listen, advocate, strategize, work as a team with their client, and ultimately are successful in cases, cannot ever be replaced by a bot.   Technology will evolve, but compassion, reputation, and results still matter.

When you retain me, you’re not getting a script. You’re getting:

• 23 years of ERISA disability experience
• Strategic, circuit-specific legal knowledge
• A reputation for success and tenacity among colleagues, insurers, and opposing counsel
• A teammate who sees you as more than a claim number
• A fierce advocate who will not ignore you or reduce you to a piece of datum that will influence future actions

The bottom line: You deserve someone who understands not just the law, but the weight of what’s at stake. You deserve someone who knows how to get results and treats you with dignity along the way.

Final Word: Don’t Trust a Bot with Your Livelihood

AI has its place, but not as your attorney. Not when your disability benefits, your financial survival, and your mental and physical health are on the line.

Before you go down a rabbit hole of chatbot answers, talk to someone who’s been through this hundreds of times, someone who won’t hallucinate law, who respects your privacy, and who knows how to win an appeal, not just write about it.

Contact Springer Ayeni today. Let’s protect what matters most—your income, your dignity, your future.

Springer Ayeni: Compassion. Reputation. Results.
www.benefitslaw.com

Read More

Here’s a blast from the near past, which feels like a lifetime ago

So much has happened in these few months since I wrote this message to the Employee Benefits Committee as one of its incoming co-chairs.  Since then, we had a successful midwinter meeting in Rancho Mirage, but none of us knew that would likely be our last travel occasion for the foreseeable future.   Here’s a blast from the near past, which feels like a lifetime ago: 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/labor_law/publications/ebc_news_archive/holiday-2019-issue/message-from-new-co-chair/

Read More

Know Disability Benefits Before Accepting A Job Offer

You found it: the perfect job for your next career move with a great salary. You are ready to give your acceptance! But before you do, understand what’s really included in the “benefits package” that your future employer described to you in broad strokes. Yes, there is health insurance and 401(k) matching, but an often-overlooked benefit that becomes crucial in a time of need is your employer’s long-term disability insurance benefit.

Many employers provide a long-term disability insurance policy to employees, which most employees could care less about because no one intends to be taken out of their profession by a disability. Yet a disability can come in many forms, and there are visible and invisible disabilities. You may be entitled to a disability benefit because you are recovering from a surgery, because you experience pain, because you have a degenerative condition, because you suffer from a brain injury, because you have a life-threatening condition, or due to mental health issues. Although you hope to never need to make a disability claim, it’s smart to be aware of what the plans provide should you need to make a short- or long-term disability claim.

The finances:

Disability insurance plans typically cover 60-66.67% of your base income. In general, if you pay the premiums with after-tax dollars as a payroll deduction, then the benefit is non-taxable. If your employer pays the premiums, then the benefit is taxable. Therefore, if you have the option, CHOOSE TO PAY THE PREMIUMS YOURSELF! The tax savings should you become disabled will be well-worth the monthly premium cost.

Disability insurance benefits typically pay through Social Security Normal Retirement Age, which is age 67 for those born in 1960 and later.  A monthly income for the years when you are unexpectedly taken out of the workforce, particularly if your disability is expected to last for the rest of your life, is wonderful peace of mind.

Most disability insurance policies, however, cap the “maximum benefit” payable to a certain dollar amount per month. The lowest cap I’ve seen is $6,000 per month. The highest cap I’ve seen is $30,000 per month. If your plan has a low cap that would not be enough to sustain your quality of life if you become disabled, either reconsider the job offer or take our private disability insurance. You may even use this need for private insurance as a bargaining chip to negotiate for a higher salary, as such insurance is typically quite expensive.

The logistics:

Just because a disability benefit plan is offered, does not mean that approval for benefits under that insurance plan will be a piece of cake. If you have a disability that is degenerative in nature, take some time to plan your exit strategy over several months with your doctor’s advice. Work until your physician advises that you no longer should, and then seek the advice of an experienced ERISA attorney to guide you through the application process to ensure the best chance of success at the outset.

With some basic knowledge and the right planning, ERISA disability insurance benefits can be a valuable addition to your compensation package.

Cassie Springer Ayeni is the President of Springer Ayeni, A Professional Law Corporation, where she represents individuals in disability benefit applications, appeals, and lawsuits. She can be reached at www.benefitslaw.com

For more contact: Cassie Springer Ayeni

Read More

Reforming Disability Claim Procedures Under ERISA

On Dec. 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor published in the Federal Register sweeping reforms to the regulations it issues under Section 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, aimed at eliminating bias in the ERISA disability claims and review process.

Despite ERISA’s reputation as an erudite law affecting primarily pension plans, the DOL reports that, “An empirical study of ERISA employee benefits litigation from 2006 to 2010 concluded that cases involving long-term disability claims accounted for 64.5 percent of benefits litigation whereas lawsuits involving health care plans and pension plans accounted for only 14.4 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively.” (p. 3.) Hence the DOL’s decision to take aim at the regulations affecting disability plan administration, which is typically handled by insurance carriers.

The DOL noted “the economic incentive for insurance companies to deny otherwise valid claims and because plans are often able to secure a deferential standard of review in court.” (p. 8.) Although the DOL received commentary that disability claims administrators should not be subject to the same rigorous regulations issued under the Affordable Care Act to health plan administrators, “the department views enhancements in procedural safeguards and protections similar to those required for group health plans under the Affordable Care Act as being just as important, if not more important, in the case of claims for disability benefits.” (p. 10.) It noted the need for transparency and accountability in all claims handling. (p. 11.)

The department enhanced protections for disability plan participants in eight ways (pp. 11-12):

Increased independence and impartiality of the decision makers

Adverse decisions must fully explain the reasons for the denials and why evidence of the claimant was disagreed with

Notification to claimants of the right to obtain their claim file and other documents before a final decision is made and to present testimony and other evidence in support of their claim

Provision of an opportunity for claimants to respond to adverse medical opinions before a final decision is made

A guarantee that a claimant can proceed to litigation if the administrator fails to comply with the DOL regulations (stricter than “substantial compliance”)

A guarantee that a rescission of coverage triggers appeal rights under the regulations

Cultural and linguistically appropriate requirements for communications

A requirement that the notice of an adverse benefit determination on review must include a description of any applicable contractual limitations period and its expiration date (p. 54)

But perhaps the biggest protection is the first, requiring impartiality not just in claims decision makers, but also in vocational experts, medical consultants and in-house medical reviewers. (pp. 13-15.) And the DOL understood and took issue with the notion that impartiality could be achieved if the administrator, for example, hires a company who then hires the medical expert for review. It stated: “The text of the rule does not limit its scope to individuals that the plan directly hires. Rather, the rule’s coverage extends to individuals hired or compensated by third parties engaged by the plan with respect to claims.” (p. 15.) It cautioned that such a prohibition should not temper a court’s inquiry into the neutrality of the expert, noting the availability of discovery to probe such matters. (p. 16.)

The DOL further disabused the insurance practice of rejecting experts that would support an approval of benefits in favor or experts that would support denial as inappropriate “expert shopping.” (p. 20.) It found that “[r]equiring plans to explain the basis for disagreeing with experts whose advice the plan sought” should help that problem. (p. 20.) The department couched the requirement to explain disagreement with medical and vocational professionals in denying a claim “as a matter of basic fiduciary accountability.” (p. 22.)

Regarding Social Security disability awards, the department was careful to specify that although it does not expect administrators to defer to a favorable Social Security disability determination, “a more detailed justification would be required in a case where the U.S. Social Security Administration definitions were functionally equivalent to those under the plan.” (p. 25.) It refused, however, to adopt the “treating physician rule” present in Social Security decisions, where the administrator must defer to the opinion of the treating physician. (p. 25.)

The department vigorously defended its decision to allow claimants to review and rebut evidence that would be used to deny a claim. Commenters argued that claimants could provide an endless loop of evidence supporting a claim that the administrator would have to rebut endlessly as well. The DOL dismissed that argument as contrary to fiduciary obligations: “The fiduciary obligation to pay benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan does not require a fiduciary to endlessly rebut credible evidence supplied by a claimant that, if accepted, would be sufficient to justify granting the claim. In fact, an aggressive claims-processing practice of routinely rejecting or seeking to undermine credible evidence supplied by a claimant raises questions about whether a fiduciary, especially one operating under a conflict of interest, is violating the fiduciary’s loyalty obligation under ERISA to act solely in the interest of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries.” (p. 37.)

Controversially, the department approved a “tolling” of timelines for responding to claims and appeals where the claimant submits additional evidence for the administrator to consider. “In the department’s view, the current disability claims regulation ‘special circumstances’ provision permits the extension and tolling expressly added to the group health plan rule under the ACA claims and appeals final rule.” (p. 40.) It remains to be seen if this will deny claimants swift access to the courts or even allow a statute of limitations to expire while tolling is in place. See Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., 134 S.Ct. 604, 611 (2013). Perhaps in anticipation of this conundrum, the department addressed the potential problem raised by the Heimeshoff decision where a statute of limitations could expire while a participant was engaging in the mandatory review process prescribed under ERISA Section 503. It stated:

First, Section 503 of ERISA requires that a plan afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review of that decision by 53 an appropriate named fiduciary. The department does not believe that a claims procedure would satisfy the statutory requirement if the plan included a contractual limitations period that expired before the review was concluded …

A limitations period that expires before the conclusion of the plan’s internal appeals process on its face violates ERISA Section 503’s requirement of a full and fair review process. A process that effectively requires the claimant to forego the right to judicial review and thereby insulates the administrator from impartial judicial review falls far short of the statutory fairness standard and undermines the claims administrator’s incentives to decide claims correctly. (pp. 52-53.)

It further stated that a contractual limitations period that does not permit a lawsuit after the conclusion of an administrative appeal “is unenforceable.” (pp. 53-54.) In an effort to provide transparency, the department will now require administrators to state any contractual limitations period “including the date by which the claimant must bring a lawsuit” in a final adverse decision. (p. 53.)

However, the department did not provide much leeway for plan administrators to avoid litigation for failing to comply with the regulations. In fact, for the administrator to argue failure to exhaust administrative remedies despite noncompliance, the administrator’s failure to comply must be all of the following: “(1) de minimis; (2) nonprejudicial; (3) attributable to good cause or matters beyond the plan’s control; (4) in the context of an ongoing good-faith exchange of information; and (5) not reflective of a pattern or practice of noncompliance.” (p. 42.)

The department refused to provide a general rule on the level of deference an administrator would receive from a reviewing court, but did indicate that where the administrator’s noncompliance has resulted in a claim’s deemed exhaustion, the “legal effect of the definition may be that a court would conclude that de novo review is appropriate because of the regulation that determines as a matter of law that no fiduciary discretion was exercised in denying the claim.” (pp. 43-44.)

 

Read More

PRACTICE GUIDE: ERISA ISSUE SPOTTING – HOW TO AVOID MALPRACTICE

ERISA. The acronym strikes terror in the heart of many a lawyer. Fuzzy notions of fiduciary duties, equitable remedies in the days of a divided bench, and preemption can cause even the most erudite of attorneys to break into a cold sweat. My friends: speaking as someone who has handled ERISA claims, litigation, and appeals for 15 years, I’m here to tell you that it is really not that bad! Allow me to walk you through some ERISA basics so that you can issue spot and avoid malpractice.

ERISA Fundamentals

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) provides minimum standards for voluntarily established benefit plans in the private industry. In addition to pension plans, ERISA governs health and welfare benefit plans, including employer-sponsored disability and life insurance plans. ERISA does not cover benefit plans established or maintained by governmental entities, churches for their employees, or plans which are maintained solely to comply with applicable workers compensation, unemployment, or disability laws. This means that UC plans are non-ERISA (government) plans, but an employer’s benefit plans are governed by ERISA.

ERISA requires plans to provide participants with plan information. ERISA § 104(b)(4). Those who manage and control plan assets must act as fiduciaries. ERISA § 404. ERISA plans must have a grievance and appeals process for benefit claims. ERISA § 503. The process of appealing a denied benefit claim is also called a “request for review,” and is crucial to achieving success on a denied benefit claim, either with the administrator or before a federal court. TIP: There is a 180-day deadline for submitting ERISA appeals that CANNOT be missed. Finally, ERISA gives participants and beneficiaries the right to sue for benefits and breaches of fiduciary duty. ERISA § 502(a). Lawsuits related to or remedied by ERISA are brought in federal district court. Statutes of limitations are often identified in the ERISA plans themselves and must be adhered to.

ERISA Preemption

ERISA has broad preemption provisions. ERISA § 514. If a remedy is available under ERISA, the claim will be preempted. If a case “relates to” an ERISA plan because there is a “connection with or reference to” a plan, the case will be preempted. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 739. For example, in Ingersoll-Rand Co. v McClendon, the Supreme Court held that a wrongful discharge action was preempted by ERISA because the plaintiff alleged that the wrongful termination was primarily because of the employer’s desire “to avoid contributing to, or paying benefits under, the employee’s pension fund.” 498 U.S. 478, 483 (1990). However, in another case, the Supreme Court determined that California’s prevailing wage law is not preempted by ERISA because the law does not “make reference to” ERISA plans, nor does it have a connection to an ERISA plan because “[t]he prevailing wage statute alters the incentives, but does not dictate the choices, facing ERISA plans.” California Div. of Labor Standards Enf’t v. Dillingham Const., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 328, 334 (1997).

As a general rule, if the alleged harm is that the unlawful conduct interfered with a right to receive, vest in, or accrue an employee benefit, then the claim will be preempted. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (preempting a common law wrongful discharge claim where the claim was that the employer retaliated to prevent vesting in an ERISA plan). TIP: If you are concerned that your case will be pre-empted by ERISA, avoid alleging that any remedies are available under any kind of employee benefit plan or that any claims bear a connection to an employee benefit plan. Do NOT allege that the bad behavior caused a loss of employee benefits. Do NOT allege that the bad behavior should result in payment of disability or other ERISA benefits. These allegations will cause you to be removed to the federal courts that have exclusive jurisdiction over ERISA claims. And, if the claim is properly an ERISA claim for benefits, then there will be no consequential or punitive damages available, nor will there be a jury trial.

However, ERISA’s “savings clause” provision saves from preemption any law that regulates insurance, banking, or securities. ERISA § 514(b)(2)(A). An example of the application of the savings clause is in California’s “notice prejudice” rule, which provides that claims can proceed even where there is late notice unless the insurer is prejudiced by the late notice. Because this is a law that regulates insurance and does not provide a remedy that conflicts with ERISA, the law is not preempted. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358, 373, 119 S. Ct. 1380, 1389, 143 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1999).

ERISA Long-Term Disability Cases

While most people are familiar with ERISA governing pension plans, 80% of all ERISA litigation is actually over denied long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

What is the LTD benefit?

Employer-sponsored LTD plans, also known as “group” disability insurance plans, generally provide benefits after 6 months of disability until retirement age. The benefit is typically 2/3 of pre-disability earnings. Unlike private disability plans, almost all ERISA LTD plans will offset other income or benefits including severance, workers’ compensation, Social Security Disability, state disability, and even retirement benefits received. TIP: if you are negotiating a settlement for your client, be sure that it cannot be characterized as an off-settable source of income to the ERISA LTD benefits, or the client will essentially have to hand over the settlement funds to the ERISA LTD insurer.

Example of a severance that will likely be offset 100%: “After the Separation Date, EMPLOYEE will receive payments from EMPLOYER totaling $65,000, constituting salary continuation, accumulated sick leave, lost wages, and severance pay.”

Example of a severance that will not likely be offset: “After the Separation Date, EMPLOYEE will receive payments from EMPLOYER totaling $65,000 as consideration for waiving the claims specified herein. This amount does not constitute salary continuation, accumulated sick leave, lost wages, or severance pay.”
If it is impossible to avoid the triggering language, just leave out the description as a last resort.

When Is Someone Disabled?

Many ERISA LTD plans have an “own occupation” standard of disability that shifts to an “any occupation” standard of disability after 24 months. In other words, after 24 months, the claimant has to be disabled from any occupation given her education, training, experience, and station in life, to continue to receive LTD benefits.
Many ERISA LTD plans also have a 2-year limitation for certain conditions. Common limitations include mental illnesses, “self-reported” conditions, neuro-musculoskeletal disorders, chronic fatigue conditions, chronic pain conditions, allergies, and chemical sensitivities. TIP: if you are working with a disabled client’s physicians and there are also emotional distress issues, be aware that the mental health component should be listed as secondary to the physical component of the disability to avoid the 24-month mental health limitation in the ERISA LTD plan.

Types of Plans

There are two types of ERISA LTD Plans: insured and self-funded. With self-funded plans, the employer sets aside funds for qualified participants. Because the risk of payment lies with the employer, usually big employers like AT&T or Johnson & Johnson are the only employers providing self-funded plans. With these plans, non-preempted state law insurance protections do not apply. With insured plans, the employer purchases an insurance policy to provide disability benefits to its. Often, the insurer both decides liability and pays the benefits. The Supreme Court recognizes this as a structural conflict of interest. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 128 S. Ct. 2343 (2008). In my experience, some insurers are better than others. Standard Insurance currently has the worst definition of disability, limiting so many conditions to 24 months that it shocks me when someone is eligible for benefits beyond two years; Liberty Mutual is particularly cantankerous in litigation.

POP QUIZ!

Time for some ERISA issue spotting!

1. If someone has a disability or other employee benefit claim, does ERISA govern if the employer is:
A: A private company?
B: Government (U.C., federal employee, state employee, public school teacher)?
C: A partnership that covers both partners and employees?
D: A private company where there are only owners but no employees?

Answers: A: Yes; B: No; C: Yes; D: No (there must be an employee covered as well for ERISA to govern)

2. If someone has been disabled from her “own occupation” for 24 months, then the plan switches to an “any occupation” standard of disability, is she still entitled to benefits where she is:
A: a lawyer with bipolar disorder who is told by the insurer to go get a job as a manual laborer?
B: a construction worker who has a high school education but who also has lifting restrictions, where the insurer tells her to go get a job as a receptionist for a construction company?

Answers: A: No (not appropriate given education, training, experience, and station in life); B: Yes (as long as the salary matches her station in life)

3. What allegations will be preempted by ERISA?
A. Discrimination caused the employee to lose accrual of retirement benefits.
B. Emotional distress resulted from denied disability claim.
C. Employee was not paid fair wages.
D. California’s “notice prejudice” rule trumps an ERISA Plan’s claim filing deadline.

Answers:
A: Preempted – remedy of restored retirement conflicts with ERISA’s remedy for a breach of fiduciary duty claim. Ingersoll-Rand Co. v McClendon, 498 U.S. 478, 483 (1990);
B: Probably preempted: one court has recently held that emotional distress claims, if they are independent from the lost benefit claims, can proceed in state court. Daie v. The Reed Grp., Ltd., No. C 15-03813 WHA, 2015 WL 6954915, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Our defendants’ duty not to engage in the alleged tortious conduct existed independent of defendants’ duties under the ERISA plan.”);
C: Not preempted: California Div. of Labor Standards Enf’t v. Dillingham Const., N.A., Inc., 519 U.S. 316, 328, 334 (1997);
D: UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358, 373, 119 S. Ct. 1380, 1389, 143 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1999).

A Final Tip: Don’t Waive Your Client’s ERISA Claims in a Severance Agreement

Finally, many clients call me after having accepted a “standard” severance agreement from their employer, where they unknowingly waived their ERISA disability claim rights. Oops! While ERISA pension claims vest and cannot be waived, the same is not true for ERISA health and welfare claims, including disability claims. Please be sure that your clients do not waive their ERISA rights, as their disability and life insurance plans in particular may be far more valuable to them than the severance itself. Employers are generally willing to agree to carve out ERISA disability and life insurance claims once they understand the ramifications.

Example of a good ERISA carve-out: … However, the following claims are specifically and expressly excluded from the foregoing Release: (i) health insurance benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA); (ii) claims with respect to benefits, including short- and long-term disability benefit benefits, under a welfare benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); or (iii) claims with respect to vested benefits under a retirement plan governed by ERISA.

If you ever have a question about how to navigate ERISA’s tricky waters, call an experienced ERISA attorney. Us ERISA nerds are typically happy to field questions and co-counsel if you find yourself in over your head. I can be reached at cassie@benefitslaw.com if you have any questions. You can also find more information about ERISA on the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) website, at https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/.

Cassie Springer Ayeni is the President and Founder of Springer Ayeni, A Professional Law Corporation, in Oakland, CA, where she focuses on ERISA disability and life insurance cases. She can be reached at cassie@benefitslaw.com or www.benefitslaw.com

Read More