The case of Howard Schmill v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) involved a long-term disability (LTD) claim under a plan governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Please note that the Ortiz Law Firm did not handle this case. Schmill, a Louisiana resident, was a foreman at Turner Industries Group, LLC, …
MetLife
Here is a collection of all our content relating to MetLife.
Sutton v. MetLife – LTD Policy Requires Objective Evidence, Not Conclusive Proof
The plaintiff, Sutton, filed a lawsuit against MetLife, the defendant, for the wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits under his employer’s plan governed by ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act). Background Under the disability plan’s policy documents, if an employee’s disability is attributable to a neuromuscular or musculoskeletal condition, benefits are normally paid for only …
Sutton v. MetLife – LTD Policy Requires Objective Evidence, Not Conclusive ProofRead More
Fowkes v. MetLife – Plaintiff Did Not Prove She Was Disabled
Ms. Fowkes does not contend the Plan’s written evidence requirement violates ERISA. Instead, she takes issue with MetLife’s procedures to evaluate her LTD claim. In particular, she contends MetLife required her to present “objective evidence” supporting her LTD claim. At the hearing, she argued that MetLife did not consider the cumulative effect of her conditions in determining whether she adequately established disability. MetLife contends subjective reports of pain need not be taken at face value and argued at hearing that no disability is established even when considering Ms. Fowkes’s conditions in combination.
Fowkes v. MetLife – Plaintiff Did Not Prove She Was DisabledRead More
Santana-Diaz v. MetLife – Court Rules Clinical is Not An Ambiguous Term
MetLife forwarded responses from Santana’s treating physicians to Dr. Simon, an “independent physician,” who reviewed them and concluded that the MRI was normal for a person of Santana’s age and that Santana had still failed to submit clinical evidence showing that he had either radiculopathy or any limitations due to neuropathy. By a letter dated August 19, 2011, MetLife denied Santana’s administrative appeal and upheld its earlier decision to deny him continuing long-term disability benefits. The Court agreed with MetLife that.
Santana-Diaz v. MetLife – Court Rules Clinical is Not An Ambiguous TermRead More
Sumpter v. MetLife – Court Finds That Claimant’s Lawsuit is Frivolous
In granting summary judgment for MetLife, the district court reasoned that when Sumpter became disabled, Delphi’s plan did not provide the benefit he sought and that he was not entitled to equitable relief. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld this decision.
Sumpter v. MetLife – Court Finds That Claimant’s Lawsuit is FrivolousRead More
Understanding How Courts Evaluate Long-Term Disability Lawsuits
Since 2008, the starting point to even begin understanding how federal courts evaluate long-term disability claims covered by ERISA is Metropolitan Life v. Glenn (Glenn). In Glenn, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) was an administrator and the insurer of Sears, Roebuck & Company’s long term disability insurance plan, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act …
Understanding How Courts Evaluate Long-Term Disability LawsuitsRead More
Tash v. MetLife – Court Holds That MetLife Undermined the ERISA Process
The Court held that MetLife undermined the ERISA process by failing to issue a proper denial and, further, by failing to notify the insured about the issues in dispute. The Court ordered MetLife to pay past-due benefits, with interest, and to continue paying benefits so long as they continue to remain due under the provisions of the Plan, unless and until MetLife issues a denial that is in full compliance with the requirements contained in ERISA.
Tash v. MetLife – Court Holds That MetLife Undermined the ERISA ProcessRead More
Seeman v. MetLife – Vice President Wins Long Term Disability Claim
In this case, Teresa A. Seeman (“Seeman”) was an employee of Bank of America and served as a Vice President, Unit Manager from May of 1990 to December of 2007. Through her employment, she was part of a long term disability plan that was administered by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”). The plan defined “disability” as follows: “‘Disabled’ or …
Seeman v. MetLife – Vice President Wins Long Term Disability ClaimRead More
Randall v. MetLife – Doctor’s Conclusion Outweighs Subjective Complaints
Case Name: Randall v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of California Date of Decision: February 6, 2017 Type of Claims: Short-term disability, long-term disability, and related health, dental, vision, and life insurance benefits. Insurance Company: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, aka MetLife. Claimant’s Employer: Verizon Wireless Claimant’s Occupation / Job Position: Facilities Network Engineer Disabilities: Randall …
Randall v. MetLife – Doctor’s Conclusion Outweighs Subjective ComplaintsRead More
Carty v. MetLife – Court Orders MetLife to Pay Claimant’s LTD Benefits
In this case, Gary Carty (“Carty”) worked as a manager of Eastman Chemical Company’s (“Eastman”) information technology department. Gary held a policy under the Eastman Chemical Company Welfare Benefit Program which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) administered. Under the policy provisions, a claimant is considered disabled if he cannot make 80% of his pre-disability salary …
Carty v. MetLife – Court Orders MetLife to Pay Claimant’s LTD BenefitsRead More