Disability is not always based on a single medical condition. Many individuals suffer from multiple impairments; and while no single condition may be disabling, the combined co-morbidity of disparate impairments justify an entitlement to disability benefits. That was the lesson taught by Curtis v. Hartford Life & Acc.Ins.Co. 2014 WL 4185233 (N.D.Ill. August 20, 2014) (attached) which involved Cindy Curtis, a former operating room nurse at Lurie Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, who became disabled in 2007 due to injuries to her back, knees and shoulders, resulting in arthritis, fibromyalgia and myofascial pain throughout her body. Although Curtis received two years of benefit payments after Hartford determined that she could not perform the material duties of her regular occupation, benefits were discontinued thereafter because the standard for continued payment required her to show an inability to perform the duties of any occupation she was capable of performing based on her education, training and experience and which paid a salary commensurate with her pre-disability earnings. The court overturned Hartford’s determination.

The court found the combined effect of Curtis’s physical and cognitive impairments qualified her to receive benefits under that standard. The court emphasized that “even if none of her impairments in isolation necessarily compel a finding in [Curtis’s] favor,” the co-morbidity of her impairments had to be considered in combination in assessing disability. The court was critical of the insurer’s file-review consultants for failing to look at Curtis’s impairments in combination with one another; and one of the consultants even refused to consider her severe pain assessing functionality even though the pain was severe enough to necessitate the implantation of a spinal cord stimulator and also caused cognitive impairments.

The court also determined that Hartford’s vocational assessment was invalid and questioned how Hartford could determine that an operating room nurse would have the qualifications to work as a deputy sheriff or building guard as the insurer had found.

This is an important ruling for disability claimants who suffer from multiple medical conditions because it recognizes the reality that even if none of the conditions considered separately would be disabling, when they are considered together, a more realistic picture emerges.

DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari represented Cindy Curtis in this matter, together with attorney Bridget O’Ryan indianapolis.

Related Articles

Courts Should Follow 8th Circ. On ERISA Procedure Rules

There is no provision in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 mandating that claimants must exhaust internal appeals as a precondition to filing a lawsuit to challenge a claim denial. Nonetheless, most courts have required claimants to exhaust prelitigation appeals before their cases may be heard in court. […]

‘Full and Fair Review’ Required Insurer to Share Adverse Report With Claimant

‘Full and Fair Review’ Required Insurer to Share Adverse Report With Claimant

The ERISA statute, at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1133, guarantees benefit claimants the right to a “full and fair review” of denied claims. To flesh out the meaning of what constitutes a full and fair review, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a detailed set of regulations in 29 C.F.R. Sec. 2560.503-1 setting forth minimum standards plan administrators must meet. […]

All the Ways in Which a Disability Benefits Claim Appeal Can Go Wrong

All the Ways in Which a Disability Benefits Claim Appeal Can Go Wrong

You worked hard on your long term disability appeal.  Hopefully, you followed our LTD claim appeal best practices when preparing your appeal.  Maybe you followed our advice and hired an attorney to prepare the appeal for you.  Now, the appeal is in the insurer’s hands.  Despite your preparation, it is still possible for the appeal to go awry after it is submitted to the disability insurer. […]