{"id":7398,"date":"2020-04-30T05:27:16","date_gmt":"2020-04-30T10:27:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/?p=7398"},"modified":"2024-01-19T12:56:58","modified_gmt":"2024-01-19T17:56:58","slug":"tash-v-metlife-court-holds-that-metlife-undermined-the-erisa-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/tash-v-metlife-court-holds-that-metlife-undermined-the-erisa-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Tash v. MetLife – Court Holds That MetLife Undermined the ERISA Process"},"content":{"rendered":"
Case Name:\u00a0<\/strong>Raymond M. Tash, DDS v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Pacific Dental Services, Inc., Employee Benefit Plan<\/p>\n Court:\u00a0<\/strong>United States District Court Central District of California<\/p>\n Type of Claim:\u00a0<\/strong>Long-Term Disability<\/a><\/p>\n Insurance Company:\u00a0<\/strong>Metropolitan Life \u201cMetLife\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Claimant\u2019s Employer:\u00a0<\/strong>Pacific Dental Services, Inc.<\/p>\n Claimant\u2019s Occupation \/ Job Position:\u00a0<\/strong>Dentist\/Doctor of Dentistry<\/a><\/p>\n Disabilities: <\/b>There was no mention of his specific disabilities\/conditions- it just said he had multiple injuries.<\/p>\n Definition of Disability: <\/strong>The Plan defines Disability for LTD purposes for the first two years as: \u201cemployee\u2019s inability to perform his \u2018own occupation.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n The Plan allows an employee to receive LTD benefits beyond two years if the employee \u201cis unable to earn 60% of his prior earnings in \u201cany gainful occupation\u201d that he is qualified to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Specifically, the Plan provides:<\/p>\n \u201cDisabled or Disability means that, due to sickness or as a direct result of accidentally injury . . . You are unable to earn:<\/p>\n The Plan also contains a 12-month limitation on benefits for certain medical conditions. This 12-month limitation applies to disability due to mental or nervous disorders<\/a>, neuromuscular, musculoskeletal, or soft tissue disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome<\/a>, and related conditions. The most relevant of these conditions is the \u201cNeuromuscular, Musculoskeletal or Soft Tissue Disorder (the \u201cSoft Tissue Limitation\u201d), which the Plan further defines as follows:<\/p>\n “Neuromuscular, musculoskeletal or soft tissue disorder including, but not limited to, any disease or disorder of the spine or extremities and their surrounding soft tissue; including sprains and strains of joints and adjacent muscles, unless the Disability has objective evidence of: Benefits Paid? The plaintiff<\/strong>\u00a0was approved for long-term disability benefits on May 31, 20011, and received payment of back benefits as of February 10, 2011 (the date the Plan\u2019s elimination period ended). In March 2012, MetLife stopped paying benefits to Plaintiff without providing either notice or explanation.<\/p>\n Procedural history:\u00a0<\/strong>Plaintiff filed a claim under the Policy on February 24, 2011. MetLife approved Plaintiff\u2019s claim for long-term disability benefits on May 31, 2011. MetLife paid back benefits as of February 10, 2011, but abruptly stopped paying benefits to Plaintiff in March 2012. On April 17, 2012, Plaintiff wrote to MetLife complaining about the lack of benefits in accordance with MetLife\u2019s complete failure to explain the basis for its decision to stop paying Plaintiff benefits. The claim notes in MetLife\u2019s file show that MetLife was reevaluating the Plaintiff\u2019s claim in mid-February 2012.<\/p>\n On May 7, 2012, MetLife sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that Plaintiff\u2019s claim was currently under investigation to decipher if the \u201cbenefits would continue beyond your [Plaintiff\u2019s] benefit under the plan\u2019s limited disability benefit provision.\u201d Additionally, MetLife stated that it would continue to pay benefits under a reservation of rights pending the investigation results.<\/p>\n MetLife denied Plaintiff\u2019s claim on June 14, 2012, stating that Plaintiff\u2019s condition was within one of the 12-month limited conditions but failed to state which limiting condition it was. The plaintiff then sought counsel from Mr. George Kingsley, who submitted an appeal on the Plaintiff\u2019s behalf. On December 7, 2012, MetLife upheld its denial of Plaintiff\u2019s claim. The plaintiff responded by filing a lawsuit, which ultimately settled with the following conditions:<\/p>\n On August 8, 2014, Plaintiff submitted the documents he would rely on in making his claim under the \u201cany occupation\u201d provision of the Plan. Per the strict timing guidelines set out in the settlement agreement, MetLife had until September 22, 2014, to issue a decision regarding Plaintiff\u2019s claim. MetLife failed to meet the deadline, issuing a letter on September 24, 2014, stating that Plaintiff\u2019s file had been submitted for a physician review<\/a>. However, Plaintiff\u2019s claim file was not submitted to a reviewing physician until December 12, 2014, after the current litigation began.<\/p>\n On November 11, 2014, since MetLife had still not issued a decision nor had it provided Plaintiff with any explanation for the lack of the decision, Plaintiff again wrote MetLife in a \u201cgood faith effort to avoid litigation,\u201d as Plaintiff clearly stated that MetLife\u2019s decision was untimely under ERISA guidelines. When MetLife completely failed to respond to Plaintiff\u2019s letter, Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit on December 3, 2014. On December 23, 2014, MetLife gave Plaintiff a report from an MCN reviewer, Dr. Jon Glass. On February 24, 3016, MetLife denied the Plaintiff\u2019s claim, accompanied by an investigative report by Ethos Risk Services and several other documents. Plaintiff rejected the report MetLife submitted and responded with a March 16, 2016, letter by Dr. Shimizu. MetLife responded with a new medical report by Dr. Sims, which Plaintiff again rejected.<\/p>\n Issues:\u00a0<\/strong>The Court addressed the issue of MetLife\u2019s failure to issue a timely denial letter and the basis for its refusal to supply Plaintiff with a reason for its action in violation of ERISA. More specifically: \u201cMetLife\u2019s unexplained refusal to issue a denial letter until the eve of trial turned this case from a straightforward issue of whether [Plaintiff] was disabled under the Plain into a tangled accumulation of filings and counter-filings regarding matters that distract the Court from the merits of this case. For instance, the Court came to the trial facing fourteen filings with potential issues that required rulings.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
\n\u2013 Seropositive Arthritis<\/a>
\n\u2013 Spinal Tumors, malignancy, or Vascular Malformations
\n\u2013 Radiculopathies
\n\u2013 Myelopathies
\n\u2013 Traumatic Spinal Cord Necrosis; or
\n\u2013 Myopathies”<\/p>\n\n