Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
- The Road From COVID to Disability
- Why MetLife Said “No” to Long-Term Disability
- Legal Arguments at the Heart of the Case
- The Court’s Verdict: A Win for Baltes
- A Ripple Effect for Long COVID and Subjective Claims
- If Your LTD Claim Was Denied for “Lack of Objective Evidence”
- Why Legal Advocacy Makes the Difference
The Road From COVID to Disability
Federal Court: Central District of California
Insurance Carrier: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife)
Employer: Google LLC
Occupation: Senior Software Engineer
Austin Baltes, a Senior Software Engineer at Google, contracted COVID-19 twice—first in 2020 and again in early 2022. Following the second infection, he began experiencing persistent fatigue, cognitive impairment, and memory issues. These symptoms intensified over time, impacting his ability to perform the demanding mental tasks his job required.
By February 28, 2022, Baltes was unable to continue working and began a short-term disability (STD) leave. His claim for STD benefits was approved based on supporting documentation from his treating physicians, who diagnosed him with long-haul COVID, chronic fatigue, and related cognitive issues.
Why MetLife Said “No” to Long-Term Disability
As Baltes approached the end of his STD period, he submitted a long-term disability (LTD) claim through MetLife, the insurer and administrator for Google’s benefit plan. Despite continued medical support from his physicians—including lab tests showing toxic metal exposure and chronic COVID markers—MetLife denied the claim.
The insurer argued that there was insufficient “objective evidence” to prove impairment. Notably, they emphasized the lack of cognitive testing and questioned Baltes’ credibility, pointing to isolated social activities like attending a conference or party as inconsistent with disability. They also relied on “paper reviews” from their consultants who had never examined Baltes and had not reviewed his full job description.
Legal Arguments at the Heart of the Case
Baltes challenged MetLife’s decision in federal court under ERISA. He argued that:
- His treating doctors had repeatedly diagnosed him with disabling conditions backed by clinical and lab evidence.
- MetLife ignored critical parts of his medical file and mischaracterized his physicians’ assessments.
- The insurer improperly prioritized non-examining consultants’ opinions over those of his long-term care providers.
MetLife countered that the medical evidence didn’t support a “Total Disability” finding and insisted that subjective complaints like fatigue and brain fog weren’t enough without objective proof.
The Court’s Verdict: A Win for Baltes
U.S. District Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani sided with Baltes. In a detailed opinion, the court found:
- Baltes had met his burden under the plan’s definition of “Total Disability,” showing he couldn’t perform his job duties with reasonable continuity.
- The plan did not require “objective” proof, and it was unreasonable for MetLife to reject reliable self-reports and treating physician assessments.
- The court criticized MetLife’s reliance on non-examining consultants and failure to provide them with key information like Baltes’ actual job description.
The judge ruled that Baltes was entitled to LTD benefits during the period in question and ordered MetLife to pay.
A Ripple Effect for Long COVID and Subjective Claims
This decision adds to a growing body of case law recognizing that chronic fatigue and long COVID—conditions without easy lab confirmation—can still form the basis of valid LTD claims. It reinforces that under ERISA plans, insurers cannot arbitrarily dismiss subjective complaints or disregard treating physicians’ evaluations.
If Your LTD Claim Was Denied for “Lack of Objective Evidence”
Insurers often rely on catchphrases like “no objective evidence” to deny benefits, especially for conditions like chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, or long COVID. This case shows that courts may push back when insurers ignore credible symptoms and legitimate medical support.
If you’ve received a denial letter citing these reasons, don’t give up. Request your claim file, gather your medical evidence, and seek a legal review immediately.
Why Legal Advocacy Makes the Difference
MetLife denied Baltes’ claim even after multiple doctors supported it with lab work and clinical notes. It took a federal lawsuit and detailed legal briefing to reverse the decision. Without strong legal advocacy, many claimants may never get the benefits they’re entitled to.
Legal counsel can spot procedural issues, challenge improper medical reviews, and argue your case under ERISA law effectively.
If you’re a tech professional in California—or anywhere in the U.S.—facing a long-term disability denial from MetLife or another insurer, the Ortiz Law Firm can help. We understand how cognitive impairments, fatigue, and long COVID symptoms affect your work and life. Call (888) 321-8131 for a free case evaluation and fight back with experienced legal representation.
Disclaimer: This case was not handled by disability attorney Nick A. Ortiz. The court case is summarized here to give readers a better understanding of how courts decide long-term disability ERISA claims.
Here is a PDF copy of the decision: Baltes v. MetLife – Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment
