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.
At the Ortiz Law Firm, we know that navigating the complexities of disability claims can be overwhelming, especially when insurance companies deny benefits due to a lack of so-called “objective evidence.” A recent case illustrates the challenges our client faced and how we stepped in to help her secure the benefits she rightfully deserved. The …
Sedgwick terminated Conner’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits after a functional capacity evaluation and transferable skills analysis concluded she could work in alternative nursing roles, despite her argument that medication side effects left her unable to work any job. Although the court initially remanded the case for Sedgwick to more thoroughly evaluate her medication-related claims, it …
In this case, Shenita Sapp (“Sapp”) sought to recover long-term disability (LTD) benefits for PTSD and bipolar disorder. Her claim was denied by Sedgwick Claims Management Services (“Sedgwick”) after an independent medical examiner concluded her test results showed deliberate symptom exaggeration, despite her diagnoses from multiple treating doctors and her award of Social Security disability benefits. The court …
Disability benefits were paid for approximately one month and then were terminated. The termination letter acknowledged that “a medical condition may exist” but stated that “there must be objective medical information to support disability benefits” under the Plan. However, the court concluded that the decision to deny Godmar’s claim for short-term disability benefits beginning in July was arbitrary and capricious.
The Court addressed several issues within the Plan’s determination that the Court found did meet the required arbitrary and capricious standard. (1) Whether the Plan ignored favorable evidence from the Plaintiff’s treating physicians. (2) Whether the Plan conducted a selective review of the evidence from Plaintiff’s treating physicians. (3) Whether the Plan failed to conduct its own physical evaluation of Plaintiff. (4) Whether the Plan relied too heavily on non-treating physician consultants.