• 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
      • Request for Reconsideration
      • Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge
    • Personal Injury Claims
  • DISABLING CONDITIONS
    • Long Term Disability
    • Social Security Disability
  • INSURANCE CARRIERS
    • View All
    • Insurance Company Tricks And Tactics
  • RESOURCES
    • Blog
    • Get Free Resources
    • Lump Sum Disability Buyout Calculator
    • Long Term Disability FAQs
    • Social Security Disability FAQs
    • Long Term Disability Glossary of Key Terms in a Policy
    • Long Term Disability 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
      • Request for Reconsideration
      • Hearing Before an Administrative Law Judge
    • Personal Injury Claims
  • DISABLING CONDITIONS
    • Long Term Disability
    • Social Security Disability
  • INSURANCE CARRIERS
    • View All
    • Insurance Company Tricks And Tactics
  • RESOURCES
    • Blog
    • Get Free Resources
    • Lump Sum Disability Buyout Calculator
    • Long Term Disability FAQs
    • Social Security Disability FAQs
    • Long Term Disability Glossary of Key Terms in a Policy
    • Long Term Disability Case Summaries
    • Abbreviations in Social Security Disability Claims
  • Search
  • CONTACT
You are here: Home / Case Summary Blog / Marselle v. Unum – Kentucky District Court Finds Unum Made a “Reasoned Determination”

Marselle v. Unum – Kentucky District Court Finds Unum Made a “Reasoned Determination”

September 12, 2022 //  by Ortiz Law Firm//  Leave a Comment

Jonni Marselle was covered for long term disability (LTD) benefits under a group plan provided to Humana, Marselle’s former employer. Marselle was a consultant with Humana. The position was sedentary as it required her to constantly sit, occasionally stand, and occasionally walk. She mostly did computer work. Her disabilities included immunodeficiency, serious back pain, sinus infections, depression and anxiety.

Unum denied Marselle’s LTD claim. When I first read the Court’s decision, I thought the claimant filed a lawsuit pro se, or without an attorney. That’s because the claimant sued Unum in state court, alleging breach of contract and fiduciary duties.

Unum, of course, removed the case to federal court. That’s because the subject insurance policy qualifies as an employee-benefit plan under ERISA.

Marselle filed a “Motion for Judgement” to reverse the administrative decision, arguing that Unum’s denials were arbitrary and capricious.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order in in Case No. 3:19-cv-464-BJB on July 18, 2022.

The Court noted, “Although the Court is sympathetic to Marselle’s apparently serious symptoms and conditions, the principal question raised here is whether Unum thoroughly considered these maladies and made a reasoned determination.

The Court explained the Standard of Review and how this type of claim is evaluated in Kentucky and the Sixth Circuit. Understanding these principals is critical for anyone filing a disability claim in that area.

First, the court states “the Court focuses on ‘whether [the] ultimate decision denying benefits’—and not ‘discrete acts by the plan administrator’—were ‘arbitrary and capricious’.” This is a difficult concept for many claimants to understand.

Second, “The Court must uphold a decision if it ‘is the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process and if it is supported by substantial evidence.’”

In other words, “Even if the record is ‘sufficient to support a finding of disability,’ the insurer’s denial is
‘neither arbitrary nor capricious’ so long as ‘there is a reasonable explanation for the administrator’s decision.’” The determination does not need to be “lock solid”; it just needs to be reasonable.

Third, “the Court’s review is ‘limited to the administrative record’ as it was ‘presented to the plan administrator at the time he or she determined the employee’s eligibility.’”

Marselle’s first argued that Unum’s conflict of interest )in both determining whether she is eligible for benefits and pays benefits out of its own pocket) influenced its decision. The Court found that Marselle did not provide sufficient proof that the conflict influenced Unum’s denial.

Second, Marselle took issue with Unum’s focus on her plans to move to another state. The Court found that Marselle’s relocation plans did not play a major role in Unum’s final denial.

Third, Marselle took issue with the fact that Unum did not order a physical exam in its review of the disability claim. However, the Court noted that the policy only stated that Unum may require a claimant to undergo an examination. An in-person exam is not required. The Court found that a record review instead of an in-person exam is just one more fact to consider and is insufficient to show arbitrary decision-making on its own. The Court noted that the Sixth Circuit has found fault with “file-only” reviews in situations (a) where the file reviewer concludes that the claimant is not credible without having actually examined him or her” and (b) in instances where “the plan administrator, without any reasoning, credits the file reviewer’s opinion over that of a treating physician.” The Court found that neither of these circumstances existed here.

Fourth, Marselle argued that the two new file reviewers on the appeal ignored evidence of Marselle’s limitations and “cherry-picked” helpful evidence. However, the Court found Unum “fully reviewed Marselle’s file, fairly represented unfavorable information, and offered a reasoned explanation to support its decision.”

After reviewing all of the arguments, the Court denied Marselle’s Motion for Judgment.

FacebookTweetPinLinkedInPrintEmail

Category: Case Summary Blog

Previous Post: « Foss v. Standard – “Own Occ” is With Any Employer, Not With Specific Employer
Next Post: Opening an Encrypted CD from the SSA Opening an Encrypted CD from the SSA»

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

Location

316 S Baylen St Ste 590
Pensacola, FL 32502
(888) 321-8131
Monday - Thursday: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Friday: 9:00 AM - 2:00 PM

Quick Links

  • Testimonials
  • Case Results
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

Claims Handled

  • Long Term Disability Claims
  • ERISA Disability Claims
  • Individual Disability Claims
  • Social Security Disability Claims
  • Florida Personal Injury Claims
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Site Footer

© 2023 Ortiz Law Firm

Sitemap | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy

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

Email sent!