{"id":7448,"date":"2020-04-06T14:27:44","date_gmt":"2020-04-06T19:27:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/?p=7448"},"modified":"2024-01-04T17:40:54","modified_gmt":"2024-01-04T22:40:54","slug":"ampe-v-prudential-engineers-case-remanded-for-further-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/ampe-v-prudential-engineers-case-remanded-for-further-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Ampe v. Prudential – Engineer\u2019s Case Remanded For Further Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

This case involves James Ampe (\u201cAmpe\u201d), a Senior Development and Test Engineer employed by MIT Lincoln Laboratories (\u201cMIT\u201d). Ampe\u2019s job duties included not only traditional electrical engineer work, but also regular client interactions. He was employed by the company from 2008 to January 26, 2015.<\/p>\n

Around August 2011, Ampe injured himself when he fell and hit his head in his home bathroom. Subsequent to this injury, he began to experience issues with focusing in loud environments, inability to concentrate, and cognitive fatigue. Ampe consulted Dr. Sheba Khumbani, a neurologist, and she found that Ampe was \u201cfunctioning in the average range for verbal abilities and in the very superior range for visual-spatial skills\u201d and that he \u201cexperienced a significant decline since the possible concussion and his residual symptoms, including physical, cognitive, and emotional\/behavioral changes, are consistent with what is often seen in post-concussive syndrome<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regardless of Dr. Khumbani\u2019s diagnosis, Ampe remained at work and occasionally took FMLA leave. Over the next few years, Ampe\u2019s performance reviews decreased in quality. After a particularly poor review in 2014, the company stated that it would no longer offer accommodations to Ampe and suggested that he seek\u00a0long-term disability (LTD)<\/a>\u00a0benefits with\u00a0The Prudential Insurance Company of America\u00a0(\u201cPrudential\u201d)<\/a>. Ampe sought LTD benefits on February 14, 2015. MIT\u2019s Plan defined disability as follows:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou will be considered totally disabled if you are prevented by bodily injury, sickness, disease, or mental disorder from engaging in your\u00a0own\u00a0<\/em>occupation. After the first 24 months, you will be considered totally disabled\u00a0only if<\/em>\u00a0you are prevented by bodily injury, sickness, disease, or mental disorder from engaging in\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0occupation<\/a> for which you are reasonably fitted by education, training, or experience.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

When Ampe began to gather information for his LTD claim, he reached out to his treating physician, Dr. Seth Hermann. Dr. Hermann stated that Ampe \u201ccontinues to be limited by post brain injury symptoms, especially dizziness, fatigue, headache, nausea,\u00a0confusion, [sic<\/em>] irritability. He is not able to tolerate work and 32 hours or more of work is not medically feasible.\u201d He further stated that<\/p>\n

\u201cMr. Ampe\u2019s\u00a0post-concussion syndrome\u00a0symptoms and condition are causally related to his fall on 8\/29\/2011 . . . . Some patients never return to [sic<\/em>] prior level of functioning. What we do know is that up to 5 to 15% continue to suffer persistent post concussions symptoms.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Later, on April 27, 2015, Prudential\u2019s Vice President and Medical Director, Dr. Rajesh Wadhwa, rejected Ampe\u2019s LTD claim. His reasoning stemmed from a belief that Dr. Khumbani failed to perform \u201cvalidity testing\u201d for her diagnosis and that Dr. Hermann\u2019s report and other physical therapy records were \u201cnot relevant and current.\u201d Dr. Wadhwa, however, asked that Prudential \u201cplease consider [a] fresh neuropsychiatric IME.\u201d MIT did not wish to pay for this exam, and Ampe offered to assist with the cost; his offer was declined. On May 11, 2015, Ampe\u2019s claim was formally denied for the reasons that Dr. Wadhwa gave.<\/p>\n

On October 18, 2015, Ampe received a determination from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that he was disabled. The SSA relied on the assertions of Dr. Albert Berkowitz who stated that Ampe exhibited\u00a0cognitive limitations<\/a>, including difficulty with \u201chold[ing] information in [his] mind while using it to resolve a new or different challenge.\u201d This was further supported by Ampe\u2019s issues relating to concentration, attention, focus, and executive functioning. Ampe then decided to appeal his denial, supported by additional information.<\/p>\n

This time, Ampe included records from Dr. Hermann, Dr. Berkowitz, and James Parker, CVRP, CRC, who evaluated vocational parts of the SSA disability claim. Upon review by Prudential\u2019s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Richard Day, there were further issues with Dr. Khumbani\u2019s original diagnosis. Dr. Day suggested that Dr. Khumbani\u2019s report be evaluated by an additional neuropsychologist prior to a final decision for the appeal. Subsequently, Dr. Kristin Fiano, a board-certified neurologist, was retained by Prudential to evaluate Ampe\u2019s file. She opined that \u201coverall, the record does not provide compelling support for psychological or cognitive symptoms.\u201d Further, Dr. Fiano was critical of both Dr. Khumbani\u2019s and Dr. Berkowitz\u2019s failure to conduct appropriate validity testing.<\/p>\n

Based on Dr. Fiano\u2019s review, Prudential suggested that MIT deny the appeal; MIT agreed and did so. Ampe opted to appeal again on June 8, 2016. This time, Ampe provided a neuropsychological evaluation from Dr. Kaaren Bekken. \u00a0The evaluation showed that Dr. Bekken conducted a number of tests, and she opined that Ampe\u2019s prognosis was \u201cpoor\u201d and found that \u201cthe patterns of deficits indicate[ ] that he is permanently disabled from . . . gainful employment.\u201d<\/p>\n

When Dr. Fiano was again asked to review Ampe\u2019s file, she suggested that Dr. Bekken relied on outdated literature for her diagnosis. She further alleged that there was another issue of validity testing, and even opined that there was a possibility of psychosomatic symptoms. Prudential again suggested that MIT deny the appeal, which it subsequently did. That denial led to the instant case brought by Ampe against\u00a0Prudential.<\/p>\n

Once the court began to review the claims of this case, it came across two main issues. Firstly, the court felt that Prudential gave more weight to Dr. Fiano\u2019s opinions than those of Dr. Hermann, Dr. Khumbani, Dr. Berkowitz, and Dr. Bekken.\u00a0More specifically, the court held that it was questionable for only Dr. Fiano\u2019s skeptical opinion to so heavily outweigh that of a treating physician and three examining specialists who had seen Ampe over a period of time.<\/strong>\u00a0Secondly, the court believed that Prudential failed to investigate Ampe\u2019s limitations regarding his electrical engineer job. Prudential did not show any evidence of considering Ampe\u2019s claims of\u00a0severe headaches\u00a0and fatigue and how that directly impacted his work duties.<\/p>\n

As a result of the above two issues, the court denied both motions Ampe and Prudential had filed against one another. Because the court could not force the finding of disability, it ordered a remand for a better examination and review of all of the evidence submitted by Ampe.<\/p>\n[Note: this claim was not handled by the Ortiz Law Firm. It is merely summarized here for a better understanding of how Federal Courts are handling long term disability insurance claims.]\n

Here is a copy of the decision in PDF: Ampe v. Prudential<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This case involves James Ampe (\u201cAmpe\u201d), a Senior Development and Test Engineer employed by MIT Lincoln Laboratories (\u201cMIT\u201d). Ampe\u2019s job duties included not only traditional electrical engineer work, but also regular client interactions. He was employed by the company from 2008 to January 26, 2015. Around August 2011, Ampe injured himself when he fell and …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[256],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7448"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7448"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7448\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7448"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7448"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nickortizlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7448"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}