Has your disability claim been denied or terminated? Call (888) 321-8131 for help! We represent claimants nationwide.
Ortiz Law Firm | National Disability 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.
Our client was forced to stop working towards the end of 2022 due to a number of serious medical conditions. These included cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, diabetes, migraines, joint pain, GERD, multiple mental health conditions, and a complex history of back issues. Together, these conditions created significant restrictions and limitations that made …
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, like many other disability insurers, frequently denies or terminates long-term disability (LTD) claims based upon “independent” physician reviews. These reviews play a significant role in the claims process and are often used to justify claim denials. Understanding how Reliance Standard conducts these reviews and how to respond effectively can make …
Krueger filed for long-term disability benefits after developing POTS. Reliance Standard denied her claim, arguing it was a pre-existing condition based on earlier treatments for migraines and tachycardia. The court disagreed, finding Krueger’s symptoms and diagnosis were distinct and not properly excluded under the policy. It ruled in her favor and ordered Reliance to pay LTD benefits.
Dr. April Halleron, a Kentucky physician, filed for STD and LTD benefits due to disabling symptoms from POTS. Reliance Standard denied both claims, citing a pre-existing condition exclusion for STD and lack of evidence for LTD. The court found both denials procedurally flawed and arbitrary, especially for failing to consider her treating physician’s opinion. The case was remanded for a full and fair review under ERISA.
When Reliance Standard terminated Christine Ward's benefits in 2022, citing insufficient evidence, Ward challenged the decision. The court found Reliance failed to properly evaluate her cognitive limitations and lacked substantial evidence to support its decision.
At the Ortiz Law Firm, we understand how devastating it can be when a disability insurance company unfairly denies your claim for benefits. Recently, we had the privilege of helping a brilliant lead research scientist who was struggling with Lance-Adams Syndrome. This condition caused debilitating tremors, ataxia, and startle-induced myoclonus, resulting in frequent falls and …
In King v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the insurer failed to issue a timely decision or seek an extension within the 45-day deadline for reviewing Megan King’s appeal of her terminated long-term physical disability benefits. Under the Department of Labor’s regulations, this failure allowed King to consider her claim “exhausted” and file suit.
An Illinois social worker won her ERISA lawsuit against Reliance Standard after the insurer tried to limit her long-term disability (LTD) benefits to a mental health cap, despite her physical diagnoses. The court ruled her physical conditions alone were independently disabling and awarded benefits retroactive to 2015. Case at a Glance Claimant Win Case Watson …
An HR manager whose long-term disability (LTD) benefits were terminated by Reliance Standard won a partial victory in federal court over the insurer’s misapplication of a 24-month mental health limitation. The court found Reliance couldn’t invoke the mental health cap retroactively when her benefits had been paid all along based on physical disability from two …
In Lisa Breen v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania upheld the termination of Breen's long-term disability benefits. Breen, a registered nurse, was initially approved for benefits but later denied based on insufficient medical evidence. The court ruled that the insurance company's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, as the plaintiff failed to prove she was totally disabled from any occupation.
I am pleased to share another recent success story where we helped a deserving client recover her long-term disability benefits after an unjust denial in her long term disability insurance claim. As the owner and founder of the Ortiz Law Firm, I find it immensely rewarding to see justice served and to assist individuals in …
I recently had the privilege of representing a client whose long-term disability (LTD) benefits were wrongfully terminated after ten years of receiving monthly benefits. Our client, a 62-year-old from Rhode Island, had previously thrived in a highly demanding cybersecurity role as a data security specialist. However, because of severe and progressively worsening health conditions, they …
Reliance Standard paid Tommy Senegal’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits for over two years before terminating them, concluding his medical records showed he could perform sedentary work despite an administrative law judge’s earlier finding that he was totally disabled. The court remanded the case back to Reliance Standard for reconsideration, citing several gaps in its review …
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”) repeatedly reversed course on Smith’s long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits after a series of heart attacks, strokes, and related conditions — paying, terminating, reinstating, then terminating again — despite every one of his treating physicians stating he could never return to work. After the district court ruled in Smith’s favor …
The Court concluded that the Plaintiff did establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she was “totally disabled” under the “any occupation” standard.
Okuno has not established that she satisfied the requisite conditions to obtain disability benefits beyond what Reliance has already paid. Reliance's denial of continued long-term disability benefits appears to have been the result of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. Accordingly, Reliance is entitled to judgment on the administrative record.
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”) terminated McIntyre’s long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits under the stricter “any occupation” standard, finding her capable of sedentary work despite her Charcot-Marie-Tooth Syndrome causing progressive muscle atrophy, fatigue, and balance problems. The court sided with McIntyre, finding Reliance Standard’s lengthy delay in deciding her appeal was a serious procedural …
Although she initially received long-term disability benefits from Reliance Standard, Lash's claim was later denied under the stricter “any occupation” standard. Lash sued both Reliance Standard and Matrix Absence Management, the plan’s third-party administrator.
A federal court sided with Jennifer Coats in a dispute over how Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company calculated her long-term disability (LTD) benefit amount, ruling that her regular work week was correctly interpreted as her normally scheduled hours and that her pay rate should include the shift differential for hours worked between 7:00 PM and …
The Court affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Reliance Standard on the ground that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the claimant’s long-term disability benefits. In other words, the Court ruled in favor of the insurance company.
The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court judgment in favor of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (“Reliance Standard”), holding that Reliance misapplied its policy’s pre-existing condition exclusion to deny Julissa Bradshaw’s long-term disability (LTD) claim, and ordered an award of ERISA benefits. Case at a Glance Claimant Win Case Julissa Bradshaw v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance …
The Court found that ERISA preempts Ms. Bey’s state law claims and that Reliance is entitled to summary judgment in its favor in all respects. Given the thorough review by an independent physician, the Court did not conclude that Reliance acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
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 …