long term disability

The need to go out on disability leave is based on one’s inability to perform the duties of their occupation, not on the choice to step away from working. If you obtained disability coverage through your employer, the need to stop working due to a sickness or injury must occur while you are still employed. In our practice, we have noticed a particular “disconnect” between the disabled person’s intention to convey their need to stop working and the impact their choice of words has on the disability assessment.

Accepting that you are disabled can be very difficult and uncomfortable. This is especially true for our skilled and/or high-level professional clients such as doctors, lawyers, and corporate executives. It often feels easier to tell patients, clients, and employees that you are “retiring”, rather than admit you can no longer perform the job and need to step away. Many of our clients wonder, does it really matter what word is used? As recently seen in Cameron v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., the answer is a resounding yes. 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200078 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2022).

In Cameron, the plaintiff was a radiology administrator who became disabled by a cardiac condition. He returned to work for a short period time, then determined that he would need to stop permanently due to the stressful nature of his job, which was impacting his health. Instead of returning to his doctor to address his ongoing symptoms, he “retired” from work. Months later, his condition continued to progress and manifest symptoms supporting his decision to stop working.

Insurance companies routinely hire physicians to perform a medical records review and use that review to decide whether a claimant qualifies for disability benefits. The use of reviewing physicians is not always problematic, as they may support the claim. A fair and thorough review can also provide valuable insight and identify evidence that can be provided by the claimant to shore up their case. Those potential benefits, however, are often outweighed by the reviewing physician’s anti-claimant bias.

Medical reviewers often work as independent contractors for many different insurance companies, and frequently earn more reviewing cases than they would treating patients. As their livelihood depends on providing reports that will please the companies that retain them, they simply cannot afford to be impartial. Insurance companies rely on reviewers’ opinions over the treating physicians who confirm that the claimant is disabled.

We know that treating physicians have far more information about their patient’s condition and functional abilities than insurance doctors. Their experience personally examining the patient, making their own clinical assessments, and engaging in discussions with the patient all provide information that is not available just by reading the records. Most treating doctors take the time to develop a formidable basis to decide what restrictions and limitations are appropriate.

Articles Tagged with long term disability

“Retirement” is a Dirty Word in Disability

Disability Claims Decided Based On File Reviews – Is this Fair?