Home | Finance | Insurance | Life

METLIFE Denies Incapacity to Own Employee - Court Says Rethink

By: araikordaina katamdi

Read More About Life

When it comes to paying out short-term incapacity benefits, insurance corporations are not any friendlier to their own workers than they're to others. A recent short-term incapacity case that appeared before the United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit in Chicago, IL highlights this fact.

Kirsten Majeski was a nurse consultant working for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). In June 2006, she began complaining concerning pain and numbness in her shoulders, arms and hands. It was discovered that she had a disorder of the spinal nerve roots referred to as cervical radiculitis.

She applied for brief-term disability edges as a result of she was a participant in MetLife's short-term incapacity plan. MetLife approved her initial application temporarily, however in August 2006, the insurance company reversed its call claiming that her medical records did not objectively establish her purposeful impairment. Majeski appealed the decision.

One in all the documents that she provided to support her claim included a detailed medical report from Dr. David Weiss, who was her treating rehabilitation specialist. His detailed five-page cervical spine residual purposeful capability questionnaire revealed vital impairment related to the specific duties of Majeski's work as a nurse consultant. She also presented MetLife with a physical work performance analysis conducted by physical therapist Susan Hardin. Harden used a 36 purpose test to guage Majeski's capabilities. Her conclusion was that Majeski experienced important pain after additional than eight one/two minutes of keyboarding activities. And he or she also observed that the everyday setting needed by her sedentary job aggravated her condition significantly. She did conclude that Majeski would still be ready to perform some non-sedentary (medium) work.

MetLife sent Majeski's record to Dr. Philip Marion, a board-certified physical medication, rehabilitation and pain management specialist for an independent review. He informed MetLife on March 1, 2007 that the target findings on physical and neurological examination offered minimal support to Majeski's claim that her purposeful limitations prevented her from finishing the tasks expected of a nurse consultant. It absolutely was evident from his comments that he had seen Hardin's report, however there was no mention of Dr. Weiss’ five-page questionnaire.

On March twenty eight, Dr. Marion's reports were sent to Dr. Weiss, with a call for participation to retort by April 10. Dr. Weiss was terribly transient in his April 6 response. He merely said that he disagreed with Dr. Marion's decision.

By this point, Majeski had employed a incapacity insurance attorney. MetLife notified her attorney that they have to have her response from Dr. Weiss by April 10. Her disability attorney sent MetLife the facts on April 12 that questioned the unbiased nature of Dr. Marion's decision. The attorney pointed to a two hundred-page deposition that had been filed in an unrelated case that exposed Dr. Marion's disposition to favor employers in his reviews at the expense of incapacity applicants. Her incapacity attorney additionally mailed a CD that contained the deposition that very same day.

The record does not indicate whether or not MetLife had received the CD, but on April 18, the insurance company concluded that Majeski wasn't disabled, basing its decision on Dr. Marion's statement that Majeski's medical records didn't support her claim of functional impairment.

Social Security Approves Disability Claim

Majeski applied for Social Security disability advantages as needed by the terms of the short-term disability policy in Could 2007, therefore that if her short-term incapacity claim was approved, she would be in compliance with the policy. She was approved for disability payments in March 2008. This favorable ruling by Social Security encouraged Majeski and her incapacity insurance attorney to sue MetLife in Federal Court as a result of the incapacity arrange fell underneath the Employee Retirement Insurance Security Act (ERISA)

Article Source: http://depositarticles.com/

Madi has been writing articles online for nearly 2 years now. Not only does this author specialize in Disability, you can also check out his latest website about: Little Dolls Which reviews and lists the best Little Barbie Doll

Please Rate this Article

 

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Life Articles Via RSS!
Additional Articles From - Home | Finance | Insurance | Life
Sign Up for a free account.
Our other websites
All about SEO
Beauty Tips Forum
Submit Articles
Member Login
Link Us
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
Sitemap
New Stuff
About Us
Developer
Good shopping portal
Link to Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service

counter easy hit

Powered by Article Dashboard