Bartolic Law has turned many Cigna benefit denials into payments to clients. In one case, our client was a marketing officer who suffered a stroke, and the lasting damage to fine motor control and speech made the client unable to work on a keyboard and mouse as required to do the occupation. Bartolic Law made a compelling case including visual demonstrations of the lack of fine motor control, where we showed the client’s use of a covered cup to avoid spilling liquids and showed the client attempting to use a keyboard and mouse for work in email and various software programs. Simply reading the symptoms in medical records was not enough, and our unique proximity to our clients, and willingness to always go the extra mile, resulted in our client getting benefits paid. In another case, we demonstrated a clinical nurse taking immunosuppressive drugs to accept a liver transplant remained disabled because the client could not safely engage in public contact. This is the risk of disability rule of disability insurance law that insurers often overlook, or deliberately ignore. If you had your benefits denied or terminated by Cigna, call Bartolic Law today. One of the most frequent errors Cigna makes is misclassifying an occupation at the regular occupation stage, and then assuming you have the skills required for a very different occupation.
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)