Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : Life, Health and Disability Insurance Law Blog : California Disability Lawyer & Attorney : Barger & Wolen Law Firm : CA Life Insurance & ERISA Law, Life Health Disability

Muniz v. Amec Construction Mgmt., 623 F.3d 1290 (9th Cir. 2010)

Facts and holding: Due to his HIV diagnosis, in 1992, Dierro Muniz (“Muniz”) began receiving long term disability benefits under his ERISA-governed long-term disability insurance plan issued by Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (“CGLIC”).

Under the terms of the plan, Muniz was entitled to continue to receive benefits after 24 months if he was “totally disabled,” which was defined by the plan as being “unable to perform all the essential duties of any occupation.”

In April 2005, Muniz’s claim came up for periodic review. During the review process, CGLIC’s nurse case manager determined that Muniz’s current medical records did not support the severity of the symptoms he reported. In addition, CGLIC determined in its vocational assessment that Muniz could perform sedentary work, thus rendering him qualified for clerical positions.

Muniz’s treating physician advised CGLIC that he disagreed with its findings and that it was his opinion that Muniz could not work in any field, sedentary or otherwise. However, he did not provide any objective medical evidence in support of this opinion. As a result, CGLIC requested that Muniz undergo a Functional Capacity Evaluation (“FCE”).

Although Muniz was willing to have an FCE, his treating physician refused to authorize the exam, given Muniz’s fatigue and overall condition. CGLIC then requested updated medical records from Muniz’s treating physician. Upon review of those records, CGLIC terminated Muniz’s benefits. Muniz’s appeals were denied and Muniz filed an ERISA suit.

Applying a de novo standard of review, the District Court ruled that the administrative record was insufficient to determine whether Muniz was totally disabled under the terms of the plan and ordered Muniz to submit to an FCE. Thereafter, the court ruled that the results of the FCE did not support Muniz’s position that he was totally disabled, and Muniz appealed.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Muniz’s argument that the burden of proof should shift to the claim administrator when the claim administrator terminates benefits without providing evidence of how the claimant’s condition changed or improved since the initial benefits award.

The Court held that although the fact that a claimant is initially found disabled under the terms of a plan may be considered as evidence of the claimant’s disability, paying benefits does not “operate forever as an estoppel so that the insurer can never change its mind.”

The Court held that under the applicable de novo standard of review, the burden of proof remained with the claimant. Here, Muniz did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the district court’s holding was “clearly erroneous.”

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Muniz’s assertion that the district court improperly rejected the medical opinion of his treating physician, holding that courts are not required to give special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s treating physician. (That position has been well-established since the U.S. Supreme Court so ruled in Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834 (2003).) 

Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejected Muniz’s argument that the results of the court-ordered 2009 FCE were irrelevant to the issue of whether he was disabled when his benefits were terminated in 2006.

Although the results were not conclusive, they potentially provided insight as to Muniz’s previous condition because Muniz had many of the same symptoms and activity levels in 2009 as he did in 2006. Moreover, the district court did not rely solely on the FCE results; rather, it considered them in combination with the other evidence.

Lessons Learned: This case highlights the “What changed?” argument often advanced by insureds. (“If you found me disabled before, then you should have to show that something changed if you are not going to continue to find me disabled.”)

The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument; just because an insurer commences disability payments to an insured does not render the insured presumptively disabled until the insurer can demonstrate otherwise.

Note, however, that the argument has found favor with certain courts. For example, last year a Florida district court adopted the contrary view. In Kafie v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24184 (S.D. Fla. 2010), the court suggested that once an insurer makes disability payments, it has the burden of proof in demonstrating that the insured is no longer disabled. (The Kafie case was included in last year’s Cornucopia.)

From A Smorgasbord of Interesting Disability Cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Roth v. Madison National Life Ins. Co., 702 F.Supp.2d 1174 (C.D. Cal 2010)

Facts and holding: Paul Roth (“Roth”) was insured under two life insurance policies issued by Madison National Life Insurance Company (“Madison”). Both policies contained a “Critical Illness Benefit Rider” which provided that 10% of the policies’ death benefits would be advanced in the event the insured underwent an angioplasty procedure and certain conditions were met. One of those conditions was that the insured furnish Madison with evidence of significant electrocardiographic (“EKG”) changes.

In July 2004, Roth received an angioplasty and submitted a claim to Madison for benefits. In evaluating Roth’s claim, Madison obtained Roth’s medical records relating to the angioplasty procedure. Those records revealed that prior to the angioplasty, Roth underwent an EKG, the results of which were normal. As a result, Madison denied Roth’s claim. Thereafter, Roth sued Madison for breach of contract and bad faith.

Madison brought a motion for partial summary judgment on Roth’s bad faith claim, arguing that it could not be liable for bad faith because, in denying Roth’s claim, it had simply complied with the express terms of the riders. Roth conceded that he did not provide Madison with evidence of significant EKG changes, but argued that the terms of the riders were outdated and should be disregarded because his physician concluded that the angioplasty was medically necessary.

The Court ruled that a claim for bad faith fails where the alleged bad faith conduct is specifically permitted by the policy. Put another way, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot contradict the express terms of a contract. Since Madison had specifically relied on the terms of the contract as a precondition to paying benefits (in requiring Roth to submit evidence of EKG changes), that insistence could not be considered bad faith conduct.

Lessons Learned: The principle the Roth Court articulated is an offshoot of the more well-known and long-standing principle in California that although there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract, it will only be recognized to further the contract’s purpose. It naturally follows that the implied covenant cannot serve as a basis for prohibiting a party to do that which is expressly permitted by that contract (the policy).

(The author was counsel for Madison in the above dispute.)

From A Smorgasbord of Interesting Disability Cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Paul Revere Life Ins. Co. v. DiBari, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122906 (D. Conn. 2010)

Facts and holding: On April 29, 2008, dentist Michael DiBari (“DiBari”) submitted a claim for total disability benefits under his disability income and business overhead expense coverage (“BOE”) policies with Paul Revere Life Insurance Company (“Paul Revere”) as a result of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

Paul Revere ultimately denied DiBari’s claim because after conservative treatment failed to alleviate his symptoms, DiBari declined to undergo carpal tunnel release surgery. Although DiBari’s treating physician believed there was a risk that the surgery might not be successful, he and DiBari’s neurologist both agreed that DiBari did not have any contraindications to the surgery and that the surgery was not “medically inappropriate.” Additionally, Paul Revere’s in-house board certified orthopedic surgeon and an independent hand surgeon both agreed that by failing to undergo release surgery, DiBari was not seeking and receiving “appropriate care” for his symptoms. 

In order to be eligible to receive total disability benefits under the policies DiBari was required to be “receiving Physician’s Care,” among other things. Both policies defined “Physician’s Care” as

the regular and personal care of a Physician which, under prevailing medical standards, is appropriate for the condition causing the disability.” (Emphasis added.)

Paul Revere interpreted this language to mean that DiBari must obtain “appropriate care” for his bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome.

Paul Revere brought a complaint for declaratory relief and moved for summary judgment on the grounds that by refusing the release surgery, DiBari was not receiving “appropriate care” and was thus ineligible to receive disability benefits. DiBari interpreted the same policy language to require only that he receive “regular and personal care,” which he argued did not include surgery.

The Court agreed with Paul Revere’s interpretation of the policy language, holding that the policy obligated DiBari to do more than receive “regular care”; he was required to seek and accept appropriate medical care for his condition. It was undisputed that conservative treatment failed to alleviate DiBari’s symptoms and his treating physicians agreed that release surgery did not pose any risk to DiBari, and was not medically inappropriate. Accordingly, Paul Revere was entitled to summary judgment on its complaint for declaratory relief.

Lessons Learned: In reaching its decision, the Court relied in part on the Northern District of California’s decision in Buck v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22479 (N.D. Cal. 2010), a case which the author included in last year’s Cornucopia presentation. The Buck case also dealt with the issue of an insured’s duty to undergo carpal tunnel surgery under the “appropriate care” provisions of the disability policy at issue. The policy language at issue in Buck was similar to the disputed policy language in the present case, requiring the insured to be “receiving medical care from someone other than himself which is appropriate for the injury or sickness.” The Buck Court held that this language obligated a claimant to receive “appropriate care.” However, the Buck Court declined to grant a summary judgment motion on the issue of whether the insured’s failure to undergo carpal tunnel surgery equated with a failure to receive appropriate care because, in that case, there were conflicting opinions as to whether surgery was appropriate treatment for Buck. 

In the present case, there were no conflicting opinions concerning whether surgery would be appropriate for DiBari. The undisputed facts demonstrated that conservative treatment failed to alleviate DiBari’s carpal tunnel symptoms and that DiBari’s physicians believed that the surgery was neither contraindicated nor medically inappropriate. Therefore, while the determination as to what is “appropriate care” is often fact and case-specific, a court should not decline to decide the issue on summary judgment where the facts are undisputed that the care in question is “appropriate.”

From A Smorgasbord of Interesting Disability Cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks