Category: ERISA

Coronavirus Insurance Issues

The COVID-19 pandemic is causing many types of insurance questions. Below is an FAQ on some insurance issues people may be dealing with during the pandemic. As always, it’s important to keep in mind that the specific facts and insurance policy language will vary from case to case. An FAQ can’t take the place of legal advice from consulting with an attorney directly. But hopefully this will help point you in the right direction.

Health Insurance

Typical health insurance covers COVID-19 treatment just the same as any other illness. Washington’s Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) exchange platform is allowing a special open enrollment period for qualified uninsured individuals to buy insurance on the state Exchange through April 8, 2020. This is an exception to the normal rule that you can only buy Exchange coverage during special periods.

There are also special rules for COVID-19 testing. The federal government designated COVID-19 testing as an essential health benefit, meaning that Medicaid and Medicare plans should cover testing. Washington’s Office of the Insurance Commissioner has ordered health insurers to cover COVID-19 testing without deductibles or cost-sharing. Also, insurers have to allow patients to refill necessary prescriptions regardless of the normal waiting periods.

Disability Insurance

Employees unable to work due to COVID-19 might have recourse under disability insurance policies.  Disability coverage should provide benefits for folks who can’t work because they are sick. But, as always, the fine print matters. Many policies have waiting periods or other detailed rules for paying benefits. The specific rules will also depend on how you obtained coverage. Most folks get disability insurance from their employer, and will have to navigate the special claims procedures under ERISA. For folks who bought their policies themselves, claims will be governed by Washington State law which is generally more policyholder-friendly.

Business Loss Insurance

Businesses who close or lose revenue because of the pandemic or the state-ordered lockdown might have claims for business interruption coverage. This coverage is often provided by standard commercial insurance policies. These claims depend heavily on the specific policy language and facts. For example, some policies require actual physical damage to property before paying business interruption benefits. Other policies might require the business be closed by the authorities. It is also important to be able to document the specific losses incurred under business interruption coverage.

Know Your Rights

Anyone who thinks they have insurance coverage related to COVID-19 should be on top of their rights. In disasters like this pandemic, insurers often cut corners or underpay claims. Washington State insurance policyholders have important rights, including the right to a full, fair, and prompt investigation of their claim at the insurer’s expense. Insurers also have a duty to fully disclose all the potential coverage that you might have.

Finally, here are some resources for non-insurance issues relating to the pandemic:

 

 

 

 

ERISA Insurer’s Hiding Doctor’s Opinions Results in Appellate Win for Claimant

On December 11, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Washington and other coastal and western states) decided Wagenstein v. Cigna Life Insurance Company. The decision is unpublished, meaning it is not binding on lower courts but may still be used as persuasive authority.

Lea Wagenstein sued to challenge Cigna’s termination of her long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed insurance policy. The district court dismissed Wagenstein’s case, agreeing with Cigna’s decision to terminate benefits.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. The court emphasized that even Cigna’s own consultant, hired to examine Wagenstein at Cigna’s behest, determined Wagenstein’s disability precluded her from sitting more than 2.5 hours per day. As such, the Ninth Circuit noted that report showed Wagenstein could not perform sedentary work requiring sitting for most of an 8 hour workday.

The Ninth Circuit noted Cigna possessed a report from another consultant, hired by Cigna, who determined Wagenstein could actually sit for a full workday and thus could perform two sedentary jobs. Cigna relied on this report in concluding Wagenstein was not disabled. But Cigna hid the report from Wagenstein until Cigna’s final denial of her appeal of the termination of her benefits. That deprived Wagenstein of the opportunity to provide a response from her treating physicians, who agreed Wagenstein was disabled. Failing to provide Wagenstein the report violated ERISA’s rules requiring full and fair review of claims.

Because Cigna violated ERISA by withholding its physician’s report, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the lower court with instructions to allow Wagenstein to submit statements from her doctors rebutting Cigna’s consultant in determining whether Wagenstein remained entitled to disability insurance benefits.

The Wagenstein decision, while not binding precedent, remains an important reminder that, where the insurer relies on consultants’ opinions in denying claims or terminating benefits, ERISA protects the claimant’s right to rebut the insurer’s evidence.

 

Court Rejects ERISA Insurer’s Effort to Discredit Treating Physicians in Awarding Disability Benefits

A recent decision from federal court in Oregon is an interesting example of how ERISA disability benefit disputes can arise where the claimant suffers from complex and hard-to-diagnose conditions such as fibromyalgia. Since conditions like fibromyalgia defy easy identification, these cases often turn on the claimant’s treating doctor’s documentation of the claimant’s symptoms.

Jane Medefesser sued her LTD carrier, MetLife, after MetLife denied her disability insurance claim. Medefesser suffered from a host of medical conditions including fibromyalgia and migraines. Medefesser’s doctors opined her medical conditions impacted her ability to function even in a sedentary job.

MetLife initially approved Medefesser’s disability claim. But MetLife subsequently changed its position and terminated Medefesser’s benefits after an “independent” doctor hired by MetLife determined Medefesser could perform sedentary work. MetLife also relied on opinions from its physicians that Medefesser’s doctors were, supposedly, exaggerating Medefesser’s symptoms.

The court disagreed with MetLife that Medefesser’s doctors were exaggerating her symptoms. To the contrary, the court noted that, given the complexity of Medefesser’s condition, the treating doctors who personally examined Medefesser were in the best position to reliably assess her disability.

This ruling is notable because it addresses a common issue in ERISA disability cases involving conditions like migraines or fibromyalgia. Where the claimant’s disability arises from complex conditions that defy easy diagnosis, disability insurers have an incentive to rely on the supposed lack of “objective” findings or review by “independent” consultants. These consultants’ opinions typically boil down to: “if it doesn’t show up on an x-ray, it’s not real.” The Medefesser decision is a great example of a judge rejecting such an argument.

 

Ninth Circuit Emphasizes Importance of ERISA Claims-Handling Regulation in Reversing LTD Benefit Denial

ERISA-governed disability benefit claims are subject to the Department of Labor’s regulation requiring full and fair investigation of claims. The regulation includes rules requiring claims administrators apply plan provisions correctly and thoroughly investigate claims. A claims administrator’s failure to adhere to the rules expressed in the regulation can be the difference-maker if the benefit dispute proceeds to litigation. A recent unpublished Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Alves v. Hewlett-Packard Comprehensive Welfare Benefits Plan, emphasizes this.

Alves applied for short-term disability and long-term disability under his employee benefit plan. The plan’s claims administrator, Sedgwick, determined Alves’ condition did not render him disabled, i.e., that Alves could still perform his job duties. On that basis, Sedgwick denied both the short- and long-term disability claims. The federal district court agreed with Sedgwick.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Sedgwick’s decision Alves didn’t qualify for short-term disability benefits was adequately supported by Alves’ medical information. But the court found Sedgwick incorrectly evaluated Alves’ long-term disability claim. Sedgwick denied Alves’ long-term disability claim because Sedgwick concluded Alves failed to meet the plan’s one-week waiting period. The court concluded Alves’ clearly met this requirement. Accordingly, the court remanded Alves’ long-term disability claim to Sedgwick for further investigation. The Ninth Circuit admonished Sedgwick to follow ERISA’s rules requiring full and fair investigation of claims in reviewing Alves’ long-term disability clam on remand.

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is unpublished, meaning it is only persuasive precedent. Lower courts may follow this decision if they find it persuasive, but they are not required to.

The Alves decision is an important reminder that ERISA claims administrators can be held accountable for failing to correctly apply plan provisions and failing to investigate claims in compliance with ERISA’s implementing regulation.

When is it “too late” to make an insurance claim?

Let’s say the insurance company denies your claim. They don’t dispute you had a covered loss, but they say you missed a deadline buried in your insurance policy requiring you to notify them of the claim within a certain time. Can they do that?

The answer, often, is no. But the devil’s in the details.

Virtually all insurance claims involve important deadlines. For instance, there can be deadlines to tell your insurance company about the claim, to provide the insurer with documentation about the claim, to appeal the insurer’s denial of a claim, or to file a lawsuit. Which deadlines apply and the effect of missing them depend on the details like the insurance policy fine print and whether the policy is subject to ERISA.

Because the rules can vary and the consequences of missed deadlines can be draconian, it’s critical to consult an attorney to know your rights and obligations. Here are some general examples:

Deadlines to notify your insurer about the claim. Most insurance policies require you to notify the insurance company of your claim within a certain time period. Sometimes it’s “as soon as possible.” Sometimes’s it’s a specific date, for example, within one year of the loss.

The consequences of missing a claims notice deadline vary, but, often, the insurer cannot deny your claim just because you missed the deadline to give them notice. If you’re in Washington State, most insurers can’t deny claims just because you gave them late notice – the insurer has to prove that your delay in giving notice hurt the insurer’s ability to investigate your claim. If your delay in giving notice doesn’t stop the insurer from investigating your claim, the insurer typically can’t use the late notice as an excuse to deny coverage.

That means if your insurer denies your claim because you gave them late notice, there is a good chance you could challenge the denial. But beware – this rule does not apply to every insurance policy, especially policies subject to ERISA.

Deadlines to provide the insurer with information about the claim. Most insurance policies contain language requiring the policyholder to cooperate with the insurer by providing information about the claim. That could include, for example, allowing the insurer access to your home for a homeowner’s insurance claim, or providing the insurer medical records for a disability insurance claim.

Many insurance policies contain no specific deadline for you to provide this information. However, insurers will sometimes give you an arbitrary deadline to provide information they demand. They may tell you they will deny the claim if they don’t receive certain information by a specific date.

Similar to the claims-notice deadline, insurers typically have to prove that your delay in providing information harmed their investigation in order to deny coverage on this basis. But there are exceptions, and it’s important to bear in mind that policyholders have an obligation to cooperate with their insurers, which generally includes responding to reasonable requests for information. And, as a practical matter, looking obstructionist rarely helped anyone’s court case.

Deadlines to appeal the insurer’s denial of a claim. Many insurance policies provide that, if the company denies a claim, the policyholder can “appeal” the denial internally. An internal appeal means the company takes another look at the claim and any new evidence the policyholder submits.

Policyholders often have deadlines, sometimes just a few weeks, to submit an appeal. In some insurance policies, the appeal is voluntary, so failing to submit an appeal on time is unlikely to affect your rights. Other insurance policies – especially those governed by ERISA – make the appeal mandatory. That means missing the appeal deadline can cause you to permanently give up your right to contest the denial or seek insurance benefits.

Deadlines to file a lawsuit if your claim is denied. If it becomes necessary to go to court to fight an insurance claim denial, it’s critical to know the applicable statute of limitations, i.e., the deadline by which you have to file a lawsuit. Failing to file suit within the statute of limitations can mean you permanently lose the right to go to court. Most statutes of limitations are at least year from the date of loss. But there are important exceptions that depend on the details. For example, many homeowner’s insurance policies require you file suit within one year of the date of loss. Also, ERISA-governed insurance policies typically have far shorter deadlines to file suit – sometimes measured in days.

The upshot is that filing a late claim doesn’t make it a foregone conclusion that you lose your right to insurance benefits. If the insurance company denies your claim because you missed a deadline, there are often steps you can take to contest the denial and, potentially, obtain insurance benefits notwithstanding the missed deadline. But it’s critical to have an attorney review the facts and your insurance policy to make sure you know what deadlines apply and the consequences of missing any deadlines.