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
Can you get benefits when Lyme disease forces you out of your job?
By Cassie Springer Ayeni
It happens: You’ve been working with Lyme disease for years and stumbling along. Some days/months are better than others, but you’ve been determined to keep working in a career you love. But then, gradually, it all becomes too much. You’re not bouncing back as well. Even though you rest from the moment you get home until when you leave for work the next day, giving up social engagements, relying on others to pick up the kids, and getting take-out dinners more than you would like, you are still struggling to get through the workday.
You see your doctor and she tells you the time has come for you to take some time off of work and focus on getting better. You are disabled from working. Now what? How will you live without your income? Here are some options and a plan.
- There Are Several Sources for Disability Benefits
Besides savings (and it is almost unheard of for someone in the prime of her working life to have sufficient savings to live decently for the rest of her days), income sources for people with disabilities include:
- ERISA-governed employee benefit plans (short-term disability then long-term disability). Long-term disability usually starts after 6 months and can last until retirement age.
- These benefits are usually tax-free if you paid the premiums with your after-tax earnings, but taxable if your employer paid the premiums.
- Private disability insurance plans (also lasting until retirement age).
- These benefits are usually not taxable.
- State disability insurance that usually last for a year (like California’s EDD).
- These benefits are usually not taxable.
- Social Security Disability Benefits (available after being disabled for six months and lasting through retirement age).
- These benefits are sometimes taxable, depending on your household income.
Here, I will focus on the first prong of these income sources: short- and long-term disability benefit plans offered by your employer. Many employers offer these group disability plans to all of their employees because the premiums are low and they can be a huge benefit to employees struck with a disability, whether short or long-term. Some employees never even realize that these benefits are in place, so be sure to check with HR or review your handbook as you are preparing to go out on disability.
However, a complex area of law called ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) governs these employee benefit plans, even though you usually apply to an insurance company for payment of the benefits. Under ERISA, there are technical rules governing timelines for the insurance company to decide whether to pay your claim.
Even though you have a disability plan through your employer, you can still apply for all of the other disability benefits listed above. However, the benefits are usually coordinated so that you only receive a fixed percentage of your salary altogether, usually 2/3 or 60%.
- Your Doctor’s Role
Most people with Lyme disease have a long-standing relationship with a supportive doctor. This is instrumental to getting your disability benefit claims approved. Please make sure that your doctor knows how important it is that she fills out forms promptly so that your income stream can continue while you are not working. Here are some key tips for the “Attending Physician Statements” that you submit to the insurance company.
- Your doctor should answer the question “why is the patient disabled now?” especially if you have been working with Lyme disease for a while. Did it worsen? Is the fatigue getting the best of you? Is it now interfering with your ability to perform the activities of daily living, such as preparing meals? Ask your doctor to be specific and make sure this is in your medical record.
- Your doctor should point out that you are credible in your symptom reporting. When your doctor notes this, it helps prevent the insurance company from doubting your credibility, an unfortunately common reality when insurance companies are looking for a way to cut costs.
- Regularly schedule check-ups. Even though your condition may not get better with treatment, it is a good idea to see your doctor anyway every 6-12 months. This helps demonstrate to the insurance company that you are under the regular care of an attending physician. Also, insurance companies typically request medical records every 6-12 months.
- If you don’t already have an ERISA lawyer, you might want to check in with one now. Your lawyer can work with your doctor to get the forms filled out the right way the first time.
- Submitting the Application.
Finally, your doctor is on board and you have made the decision that resting without working is in the best interest of your health. Here is a checklist for your disability application:
- Request the short- and long-term disability application forms from HR.
- Request a copy of the short- and long-term disability policies from HR. These plan documents tell you some important information, like:
- The definition of disability. Make sure there is no “exclusion or limitation” for Lyme disease
- The Elimination Period. This tells you how long you have to be disabled before benefits start.
- The benefit amount. Typically this is 2/3 of your salary, when all sources of disability income are combined. There is often a “maximum” benefit, which high income earners need to be aware of.
- When the definition of disability “shifts.” Typically, for the first 24 months you are entitled to benefits if you are disabled from your regular occupation, and after 24 months you have to be disabled from “any occupation.”
- Duration of benefits. ERISA disability benefits usually last until retirement age or age 65, or until you are no longer disabled.
- The process for appealing a denied claim.
- Take a stab at filling out the application forms, but do not feel limited to the boxes on the forms. If you need extra space, include an addendum. If the question on the form doesn’t really apply to you, modify the question and answer to state what needs to be said about why you are disabled.
- Make sure that your employer knows they will have to fill out a form verifying your income and job duties.
- If it’s too overwhelming, ask an ERISA attorney to check your work to make sure that your application gives you the best shot at success. A skilled ERISA attorney will look for problems in your draft, and will also supplement an application with declarations and other information that will help an approval from the outset.
- And, if your application is denied, you must engage in the “appeals process” with the insurance company by the deadline, or you will lose your right to your claim. The appeal needs to contain ample medical and other evidence in support of your claim; it must be more than a letter stating “I appeal.” However, coming from someone who has handled hundreds of these appeals, you should never attempt to appeal on your own without the benefit of legal advice. The appeal stage is crucial, as you may be limited to the evidence of disability you present at this stage if you ever have to go to court.
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