• 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

OLF Ortiz Law Firm National Disability Attorneys

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
    • Long Term Disability Federal Court Case Summaries
    • Abbreviations in Social Security Disability Claims
  • Search
  • CONTACT

Mobile Menu

Call us today for help!

(888) 321-8131
  • 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
    • Long Term Disability Federal Court Case Summaries
    • Abbreviations in Social Security Disability Claims
  • Search
  • CONTACT
You are here: Home / Case Summary Blog / Bowman v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules Denial Not Arbitrary & Capricious

Bowman v. Reliance Standard – Court Rules Denial Not Arbitrary & Capricious

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

Anthony Bowman (“Bowman”) was employed as a Maintenance Mechanic which required the ability to do heavy lifting between fifty and sixty pounds. Injuries throughout his life caused him to have a number of surgeries and resulted in chronic neck and back pain. Bowman also had issues with a sleep disorder and pain medication, which led to problems with concentrating and performing sedentary tasks. As a result of his injuries, Bowman applied for long term disability benefits with Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. (“Reliance”).

Reliance approved the disability application because Bowman could not perform his duties as a Maintenance Mechanic. Subsequently, he was also approved for disability benefits by the Social Security Administration. After a two-year period of paying benefits, Reliance’s policy required a re-evaluation of the long-term disability benefits. The definition of total disability after the two years required that the claimant be unable to perform any job duties, not simply his previous job’s duties.

At this time, Reliance provided Bowman with a questionnaire and contacted his three physicians: Dr. Cordover, Dr. Connolly, and Dr. DeBerry. Dr. Cordover suggested that Bowman could “perform[] full-time work” with few limitations, but had concerns about “repetitive bending, squatting, stopping, etc.” In addition, a specific part of the questionnaire asked whether Bowman’s medications caused: “(1) no significant effect, (2) some limitations, (3) severe and limiting side effects, or (4) total restriction and inability to function productively.” Dr. Cordover cited that the medications that Bowman was taking caused “severe and limiting side effects.”

Dr. DeBarry stated that “[i]t has been determined that [Bowman] is disabled . . . and in my opinion has not improved over the past 2-3 years.” He did, however, “defer all functional capacity evaluations and further prognosis to [Bowman’s] back specialist Dr. Cordover.” Dr. Connolly, Bowman’s doctor who treated him for idiopathic hypersomnia and obstructive sleep apnea, was also contacted but provided no comments on Bowman’s disability level.

Reliance then decided that while Bowman did have a disability, he was not totally disabled under their definition because he was not unable to work in any capacity. Therefore, Reliance denied Bowman’s claim. Bowman then appealed, and in the meantime, Reliance received information from Dr. Cordover citing Bowman’s “progressing” neck symptoms, but also citing “no change in [Bowman’s] restrictions or forms that [Dr. Cordover] ha[d] filled out previously.” Reliance then sought to obtain evaluations from a Dr. Denver and Dr. Goldstein, both independent medical examiners.

Dr. Denver reviewed Bowman’s medical files and eventually opined that Bowman was able to perform full-time work with light physical demand, as long as he could change positions every forty minutes. He cited that Bowman’s “current medications . . . do not contribute to any significant limiting physical or cognitive deficits” and that he “reports hydrocodone worsens insomnia and dulls his senses[,] but the documentation fails to substantiate significant impairment in cognition or physical function resulting from hydrocodone use.”

Dr. Goldstein also evaluated Bowman and believed that he would be able to work if he only had issues related to narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and hypersomnia. However, he also stated that Bowman could not “return to his work as [Bowman] described” which meant the Maintenance Mechanic work. Overall, because of these two independent medical examinations, Reliance chose to deny Bowman’s appeal. Bowman then filed the instant suit, arguing that Reliance’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. However, more particularly, the question is whether Bowman is able to do the work of any job or not.

An arbitrary and capricious “standard of review does not mean that the plan administrator will prevail on the merits. It means only that the plan administrator’s interpretation of the plan ‘will not be disturbed if reasonable.’” If “no reasonable basis exists for the decision,” then Reliance’s decision will be considered to have been arbitrary and capricious. Further, “[w]hile an administrator may not arbitrarily ignore relevant medical evidence, it is not arbitrary and capricious to deny a disability claim ‘on the basis of conflicting, reliable evidence.’”

Bowman first argued that his treating physicians cited a “substantial and progressive decline in health,” while Reliance “arbitrarily and capriciously relied on a May 2009 claim form to support its contention that it had grounds to deny [his] claim in 2011 . . .” However, the Court held that even though Reliance had reviewed the form, it supplemented that information with the independent medical examiners’ opinions. Therefore, its decision had focused on “the facts as known to the administrator at the time the decision was made,” and the Court believed that that action was reasonable.

Secondly, Bowman argued that he had provided “significant probative evidence” of his disability by citing information from his doctors. However, the Court explained that providing such evidence is not the baseline of what Bowman needed to do to overcome Reliance’s decision. The standard of review that Bowman needed to prove was that he was unable to perform the work of any job. Here, he did not do that.

Third, Bowman claimed that Reliance had not properly evaluated the effects his medications had. He specifically stated that they “affect his ability to perform work functions, drive to and from work, [and] to stay awake during the workday.” This argument was based on a case called Adams v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, where treating physicians completely ignored the claimants’ medications. However, the Court cited that Dr. Denver opined that Bowman’s medications “do not contribute to any significant limiting physical or cognitive deficits.” Because Reliance had indeed considered Bowman’s medications, it did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Overall, the Court’s decision was to determine whether Reliance acted in a reasonable manner when denying Bowman’s claim. It opined that “it is not arbitrary and capricious to deny a disability claim ‘on the basis of conflicting, reliable evidence.’” Here, Reliance based its decisions on evidence that was reliable, therefore, its decision to deny Bowman’s claim was not unreasonable. Thus, the Court ruled in favor of Reliance and against Bowman.

[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: Bowman v. Reliance Standard

FacebookTweetPinLinkedInPrintEmail

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

Recent Posts

  • How to Win a Long Term Disability Appeal: Do’s and Don’ts
  • 3 Steps You Must Take Right Now If Your LTD Benefits Are Terminated!
  • Leveraging the Grid Rules to Secure SSDI Benefits After Age 50
  • What Is an On-The-Record Decision in a Social Security Disability Claim?
  • Understanding the Difference Between Diagnosis and Functional Impairment in Long Term Disability Claims
Previous Post: « Ampe v. Prudential – Engineer’s Case Remanded For Further Review
Next Post: Burkhead v. LINA – Denial Was Arbitrary & Capricious »

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

"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
  • LTD Federal Court Case Summaries

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!