The Bartolic Law Strategy for Success© involves aligning our goals with yours, and constantly serving with respect and grace.
Of course, we are here to help you. But we take a unique approach of trying to better equip those reviewing or defending your claim to see why you are entitled to benefits. We fight and zealously advocate for our clients, but we believe in doing so in a way that is focused on helping another see why your claim is real and you deserve your benefits.
We create a plan for your case and set internal goals, designed to complete your disability appeal in 90 days or less, while delivering the best representation. Unlike our competitors, we do not set our fees to increase for taking longer to complete our job, so we want to see your claim approved as soon as possible.
Bartolic Law is dedicated to helping clients make informed decisions based on expected values of uncertain events, weighing alternatives, and minimizing the probability of an outcome that is unacceptable to you. We equip clients to make better decisions, and take risks according to their tolerance, minimizing their risk of regret.
Ferrin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 336 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding insurance policy’s grant of discretionary authority is void under Texas law due to certificate being issued after effective date of regulation, and policy renewing after effective date, and holding Plaintiff was disabled from Any Reasonable Occupation where treating doctors certify she can sit at the occasional level, and insurer’s consultants opine Plaintiff can sit frequently, as weighing all evidence together would make capacity likely at low end of frequent range at best).
Sadowski v. Tuckpointers Local 52 Health & Welfare Trust, 281 F. Supp. 3d 710 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2017) (holding plan was arbitrary and capricious in denying medical benefits for removal of spinal cord stimulator following a fall down the stairs and infection where plan argued the expenses were caused by the same injury as the car accident necessitating implantation of the stimulator years earlier)
Tassone v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2017) (awarding client long term disability benefits denied by United of Omaha despite insurer’s doctor opining there was no objective evidence of functional impairment)
Suson v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-10817, 2017 WL 3234809 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2017) (holding Liberty Mutual’s denial of client’s long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious where Liberty Mutual disregarded client’s carpal tunnel syndrome and relied on a vocational opinion to which client never had an opportunity to address before litigation)