• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Has your disability claim been wrongfully denied or terminated? Call us today for help! (888) 321-8131

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Ortiz Law Firm

Ortiz Law Firm is dedicated to helping people recover the disability benefits they deserve. We handle group Long Term Disability (LTD) claims, individual disability insurance policy claims, ERISA disability claims, and Social Security Disability claims.

  • ABOUT US
    • Nick Ortiz
    • Our Team
    • Case Results
    • Testimonials
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Long Term Disability
      • Long-Term Disability Appeals
      • Long-Term Disability Lawsuits
      • Lump Sum Buyouts/Settlements
    • ERISA Disability Claims
    • Individual Disability Insurance
    • Social Security Disability Claims
      • Initial Applications for Social Security Disability
      • Request for Reconsideration
      • Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge
    • Long Term Care Insurance Claims
    • Personal Injury Claims
  • DISABLING CONDITIONS
    • Long Term Disability
    • Social Security Disability
  • INSURANCE CARRIERS
    • View All
    • Insurance Company Tricks And Tactics
  • RESOURCES
    • Blog
    • eBooks, Guides, and More
    • Lump Sum Disability Buyout Calculator
    • Long Term Disability FAQs
    • Social Security Disability FAQs
    • Long Term Disability Glossary
    • Individual Disability Insurance Policy Analysis
    • Abbreviations in Social Security Disability Claims
  • Search
  • CONTACT

Mobile Menu

  • HOME
  • OUR FIRM
    • Nick Ortiz
    • Case Results
    • Testimonials
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Long Term Disability
      • Long-Term Disability Appeals
      • Long-Term Disability Lawsuits
      • Lump Sum Buyouts/Settlements
    • ERISA Disability Claims
    • Individual Disability Insurance
    • Social Security Disability Claims
      • Initial Applications for Social Security Disability
      • Request for Reconsideration
      • Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge
    • Long Term Care Insurance Claims
    • Personal Injury Claims
  • DISABLING CONDITIONS
    • Long Term Disability
    • Social Security Disability
  • INSURANCE CARRIERS
    • View All
    • Insurance Company Tricks And Tactics
  • RESOURCES
    • Blog
    • eBooks, Guides, and More
    • Lump Sum Disability Buyout Calculator
    • Long Term Disability FAQs
    • Social Security Disability FAQs
    • Long Term Disability Glossary
    • Individual Disability Insurance Policy Analysis
    • Abbreviations in Social Security Disability Claims
  • CONTACT US
You are here: Home / Case Summary Blog / Bey v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules Reliance Did Not Act Arbitrarily or Capriciously

Bey v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules Reliance Did Not Act Arbitrarily or Capriciously

April 6, 2020 //  by Ortiz Law Firm//  Leave a Comment

Case Name: Darlema Bey v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Date of Decision: February 17, 2017

Type of Claim: Long Term Disability

Insurance Company: Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

Claimant’s Employer: Virtua Health

Disabilities: Ms. Bey was injured in a car accident in August 2011.

Definition of Disability in the Plan/Policy: By meeting the Policy’s initial definition of “total disability”—requiring that she be disabled from performing material duties of her regular occupation—she was awarded long-term disability benefits under the Policy. These benefits were paid for a period of two years, from February 4, 2012, to February 4, 2014.

To receive benefits beyond the initial two year period, however, Ms. Bey was required to satisfy a different definition of “total disability” under the Policy. The post-two year definition of “total disability” under the Policy is:

“[A]fter a Monthly Benefit has been paid for 24 months, an Insured cannot perform the material duties of any occupation. Any occupation is one that the Insured’s education, training or experience will reasonably allow. We consider the Insured Totally Disabled if due to an Injury or Sickness he or she is capable of only performing the material duties on a part-time basis or part of the material duties on a full-time basis.”

Other Key Definitions in the Plan/Policy: Further, the Policy included a maximum 24-month limitation for disorders caused, or contributed to, by mental or nervous disorders. See A.R. 24. In other words, in order for Ms. Bey to receive benefits beyond the first two years, she was required to show (1) that she was incapable of performing any occupation she was otherwise qualified for and (2) that a mental or nervous disorder did not contribute to her disability.

Benefits Paid? Yes. During the 2-year “own occ” period.

Basis For Denial / Termination of Benefits: To determine whether Ms. Bey could meet the heightened Policy definitions requirements to receive benefits beyond two years, Reliance obtained and reviewed the information in Ms. Bey’s claim file. By letter dated December 30, 2014, Reliance notified Ms. Bey that her claim was denied because Reliance had concluded, among other things, that she had transferrable skills that enabled her to perform other occupations. Moreover, Ms. Bey’s ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder triggered the 24-month maximum limitations on disorders to which mental or nervous disorders contributed. A.R. 198–203. The letter also explained that, while Ms. Bey was eligible for benefits through February 4, 2014, her benefits were subject to offset by Social Security disability benefits and the offset applied to payments after August 4, 2013.

Procedural history: Ms. Bey formally appealed her termination of benefits on June 15, 2015, and a flurry of communications followed.

Ms. Bey formally appealed her termination of benefits on June 15, 2015, and a flurry of communications followed. Reliance requested an independent medical examination (“IME”) in October 2015, and Ms. Bey refused to appear for the examination. Therefore, instead of relying on an IME, Dr. Kelly Allen, reviewed Ms. Bey’s medical records and issued a report. Dr. Allen concluded that she “[could] not adequately address the presence or absence of impairment as of 2/4/2014 as [she] [was] not . . . provided the ability to evaluate the claimant.” After she reviewed the records, she concluded that “there were no objective findings” as to the presence of impairment. Dr. Allen concluded that Ms. Bey would be able to work on a full-time basis, sitting for seven to eight hours and standing for one to two hours. She also noted that Ms. Bey suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Reliance upheld its decision to deny benefits beyond February 2014 in a letter dated January 22, 2016.

Key Physician Opinions: Reliance requested an independent medical examination (“IME”)3 in October 2015, and Ms. Bey refused to appear for the examination. Therefore, instead of relying on an IME, Dr. Kelly Allen, reviewed Ms. Bey’s medical records and issued a report. Dr. Allen concluded that she “[could] not adequately address the presence or absence of impairment as of 2/4/2014 as [she] [was] not . . . provided the ability to evaluate the claimant.” After she reviewed the records, she concluded that “there were no objective findings” as to the presence of impairment. A.R. 2563-64. Dr. Allen concluded that Ms. Bey would be able to work on a full-time basis, sitting for seven to eight hours and standing for one to two hours. She also noted that Ms. Bey suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Issues: (1) Reliance moved for summary judgment as to all of Ms. Bey’s claims. The summary judgment briefing focused on Ms. Bey’s ERISA claim and Reliance incorporated arguments made in its motion to dismiss regarding the state law claims and the ERISA penalty claim. Although she is not explicit, Ms. Bey appears to move for summary judgment as to only her ERISA claim.

(2) Ms. Bey primarily argues that Reliance’s determination was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to give proper credence to her treating physicians.

(3) Ultimately, an independent physician, Dr. Allen, reviewed Ms. Bey’s records for Reliance and concluded that she was unable to make an objective finding of total disability.

Holdings: (1) The Court finds that Ms. Bey’s state law claims are preempted by ERISA and that Reliance is entitled to summary judgment in its favor in all respects.

(2) She contends that administrators may not turn a blind eye to or refuse to credit evidence from treating physicians. See, e.g., Culley v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 339 F. App’x 240, 245 (3d Cir. 2009) (“[The administrator], operating under a potential conflict of interest, made decisions that disfavored the claimant at each ‘crossroads,’ and relied on expert opinions predicated on incomplete medical files.”). The United State Supreme Court has held, however, that ERISA plan administrators need not accord special weight to a claimant’s treating physician and are not required to explain “when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physician’s evaluation.” Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord, 538 U.S. 822, 834 (2003).

(3) Given this thorough review by an independent physician, the Court cannot conclude that Reliance acted arbitrarily or capriciously in weighing Ms. Bey’s treating physicians’ statements.

Summary: For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Ms. Bey’s motion for summary judgment and grant Reliance’s.

[Note: this claim was not handled by the Ortiz Law Firm. It is merely summarized here for a better understanding of how Federal Courts are handling long term disability insurance claims.]
Here is a copy of the decision in PDF: Bey v. Reliance [E.D. PA]
FacebookTweetPinLinkedInPrintEmail

Category: Case Summary Blog, Long Term DisabilityTag: Reliance Standard

About Ortiz Law Firm

Ortiz Law Firm is a national disability law firm based in Pensacola, FL. Our mission is to provide the highest level of legal representation possible to disability claimants through our diligence, perseverance, accessibility, experience, skilled advocacy, and superior knowledge. Call (888) 321-8131 for a free case review.

Previous Post: « Ausler v. Aetna – Court Affirms That Claimants Must Exhaust Appeals to File Suit
Next Post: Black v. MetLife – Social Media Surveillance Leads to Termination of Benefits »

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Top Ten Mistakes That Will Destroy Your Long Term Disability Claim

View All Resources


Our Clients Love Us

"I highly recommend Ortiz Law Firm. Very friendly staff. They helped me win my appeal against Liberty Mutual. Thank you all for being the best!!"

Lavanda T.

View All Testimonials

Learn More About Long Term Disability

  • Areas We Serve
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Denials and Appeals
  • Your Chances of Getting Approved
  • Medical Eligibility
  • Additional Parts That Do Not Happen in Every Case
  • Medical Conditions That May Qualify
  • Long Term Disability Insurance Carriers
  • Occupations That May Qualify

Footer

Contact Us

Our experienced disability law firm is ready to fight for you. Contact us today for a free case evaluation.

(888) 321-8131
316 S Baylen St., Ste 590
Pensacola, FL 32502

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Claims We Handle

  • Group Long Term Disability
  • ERISA Disability Claims
  • Individual Disability Insurance
  • Social Security Disability Claims
  • Long Term Care Insurance
  • Florida Personal Injury

Quick Links

  • About Us
  • Free Resources
  • Client Testimonials
  • Case Results
  • Nationwide Representation
  • Refer a Case

Site Footer

© 2023 Ortiz Law Firm

Sitemap | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!