A recent appellate court ruling illustrated a serious problem that partially or residually disabled individuals face – what happens if their earnings temporarily exceed the maximum amount that may still be earned in order to be considered partially/residually disabled. In Safdi v. Covered Employer’s Long Term Disability Plan Under the Union Central Employee Security Benefit […]
Residual/Partial vs. Total DisabilityBack to Insights
If an insured is making a claim under a disability insurance policy that he or she is unable to perform the duties of their occupation, does the policy require a showing that the claimant is unable to perform all of the job duties or is a showing of an inability to perform any material job […]
In Criss v. Union Security Ins.Co., 2014 WL 2707774, 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 79300 (N.D.Ala. June 11, 2014), Judge William Acker, Jr. challenged the current methodology utilized by courts in adjudicating benefit disputes brought under ERISA. The court based its premise on the universally recognized legal maxim, nemo judex in causa sua; i.e., “No man should be […]
In Fontaine v. Metropolitan Life Ins.Co., 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 41253 (N.D.Ill. March 27, 2014), DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari scored a major victory in securing an award of long-term disability insurance for a partner in a major law firm. The plaintiff, Mary Fontaine, enjoyed a successful career as a partner practicing in the field of structured finance for the law firm of Mayer Brown in Chicago where she worked for thirty years.
Whether being able to work part-time affects a claimant’s eligibility for disability benefits depends on several factors.
The phrase “total and permanent disability” can be subject to multiple meanings, as a recent ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out. In Tompkins v. Central Laborers’ Pension Fund, 2013 U.S.App.LEXIS 5161 (7th Cir. March 13, 2013), the appellate court determined that, even in the face of ambiguity, a pension plan administrator offered an interpretation of that phrase which was reasonable and within the scope of his/her discretionary authority when interpreting the plan.