Site Map
- Home
- About Us
- Case Managers
- Juris Doctor
- Law clerks
- Office Manager
- Paralegals/Legal Assistants
- Response to Edward Glaeser’s Commentary
- Practice Areas
- Resource Links
- What’s New
- Company ordered to review its benefits decision in ERISA case
- Newsletters
- Courts interpret disability insurance limitations
- What’s New Archives
- 06-07-2012
- 09/27/2011 – 02/03/2012
- 10-01-2011-10-31-2011
- 11-10-2011 09-20-2011
- 19.10.2012
- 11/16/2010 – 09/20/2011
- 02/01/2010 – 11/12/2010
- 09/1/2009 – 01/25/2010
- 4/10/2009 – 8/18/2009
- 12/1/2008 – 03/24/2009
- 06/6/2008 – 11/18/2008
- 09/7/2007 – 05/30/2008
- 04/02/2007 – 08/29/2007
- 08/01/2006 – 03/29/2007
- 06/13/2006 – 07/27/2006
- 03/06/2006 – 05/25/2006
- 01/09/2006 – 02/28/2006
- 07/29/2005 – 12/29/2005
- 04/18/2005 – 06/28/2005
- 12/17/2004 – 03/23/2005
- 08/17/2004 – 11/17/2004
- 04/05/2004 – 07/16/2004
- 01/16/2004 – 03/10/2004
- 03/06/2003 – 12/23/2003
- 06/02/2002 – 08/17/2002
- 02/10/2002 – 04/18/2002
- 09/01/2011 – 09/30/2011
- 11/04/2011 – 09/19/2012
- Supreme Court review
- FAQs
- Cases
- Testimonials
- Articles
- Articles by Mark D. DeBofsky
- 7th Circuit addresses lump-sum pension distribution question
- Choice of review standard often dictates outcome
- Disability pension blocked for working man
- Enforceability of forum selection clause reviewed
- Federal appellate court reinstates claim in ERISA dispute
- Federal appellate panel addresses insured’s disability insurance policy
- Federal court rules that showing up for work is a key to doing the job
- Federal Court says Language serves as the key in employment cases
- Federal court views risk of relapse upon return to work as a disability
- Florida case offers lesson on ERISA, good-faith duties and fair dealing
- High court looks at use of ‘common-fund doctrine’ for personal-injury settlements
- 1st Circuit Overlooks Crucial ERISA Distinction
- 4th Circuit joins chorus in questioning tactics
- 5th Circuit stands alone on degree of disability
- 9th Circuit ruling shows importance of ERISA standard of review
- A crucial distinction exists in the types of plans
- A lesson: Don’t overlook other sources of evidence
- Another Court Questions Impartiality of Doctor
- Appeals Court Rejects Rruling On Tardy Review
- Appeals panel considers insurer’s rights to recover an overpayment
- Attorneys Fees Not Enough To Deter Bad Denials
- Changed Definition Halts Disability Benefits
- Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
- Chronic pain and disability claims
- Claimant Denied Fair Chance To Continue Benefits
- Court addresses employee benefits law with regard to misrepresentations
- Court affirms that plaintiff faces medical condition, not addiction
- Court Applies Common Sense To Erisa
- Court Finds Employee Was Totally Disabled
- Court Judgment Stays On The Books
- Court Says Surveillance an Abuse of Discretion in Disability Benefits Case
- Court strays from rules of procedure
- Courts Differ Over Weighing Pain Credibility
- Courts examine 24-month mental illness limitation in disability claims
- Death Apparently Not Enough To Prove Disability
- Deferential, yes, but certainly not inconsequential
- Disability claims will falter without specifics
- Disability claims will falter without specifics
- Documents Ruling Cuts Access To Courts
- Erring on ERISA by looking for common sense
- Insurance ruling strays from precedent in drunken driving case
- Insurers Not Living Up To Erisa Duties
- Judge Questions Distinction Set For Types of Illness
- Judge takes aim at disability insurers, ERISA
- Judgment An Incentive For Careful Claims Review
- Law Trying To Get Head Around Mental Illness
- Preexisting conditions: symptoms vs. diagnosis
- Recent court rulings show difficulty in determining fee awards
- Ruling undercuts ERISA promise of protection
- Ruling warns against failure to communicate
- Social Security Case Buttresses Benefits Claim
- Social Security findings should play key role
- Social Security findings should play key role
- Social Security issues fibromyalgia policy
- Standard Of Review In Erisa Cases Too Deferential
- The challenges in calculating disability benefits
- Turning up the power of the lens raises the heat
- U.S. Supreme Court will consider issues over employee benefit plans
- Why Remanding ERISA Cases Verges on Absurd
- Why the Supreme Court’s Definition of “Civil Action” Should Lead to an Overhaul of ERISA Civil Procedure
- How Federal Circuits Use De Novo Standard of Review
- ERISA a litigant’s toy and a judge’s nightmare
- Court analyzes psychiatric illness and work
- The duty to notify of post-employment rights
- Using SSDI applications to screen disability claims
- A court wades through how a disability is defined
- A ruling that could protect thousands of claimants
- The standard of review can affect application of offsets
- Accidental death benefits to survivors of drunken drivers
- Considering a ‘prevailing party’ requirement
- Comparing an ERISA benefit to a payroll practice
- Do complaints of debilitating pain result in disability?
- Courts face challenges with ERISA, limitations period
- How the courts address ‘legal’ disabilities
- Court looks at deficiencies in determining disability
- How CIGNA handles or mishandles disability claims
- Who gets the last word in an ERISA claim appeal?
- A split in the circuits exists for ERISA benefit disputes
- Courts deal with issue of ERISA attorney fees
- ERISA A Frankenstein made up of different laws
- Applying deferential standard of review in evaluating claims
- Get to the truth on the matter
- Court revisits difficult issue of ‘total disability’
- Battle over standard of review likely to continue
- When a literal reading can be overridden
- 9th Circuit ruling provides greater protection of benefits
- Clarity needed on contractual periods of limitation
- Ruling Clarifies Contractual Limitations Periods
- Payment delays merely encourage denials
- Claims require an ‘independent decision,’ not a ‘review’
- Efficiency, expediency need to give way to fairness
- Ruling provides thoughtful primer on discovery
- Claim decisions must be reasonable and accurate
- Ruling affirms Glenn’s impact on standard of review
- Settlement did not justify vacatur U.S. court
- De novo review is not a rubber stamp
- Discretionary clauses under heavy fire
- Ruling shows courts must take more responsibility
- Ruling exposes defects in insurer’s determination
- Consider this before wrongfully denying a claim
- Court right to look at big picture in benefits case
- Ruling outlines scope of review in ERISA case
- Ruling puts Glenn decision to work
- Insurer functioned as administrator court
- Ruling an indictment of Unum’s operations
- An end to lenient regime of claim reviews
- Court finds conflict in review of claim
- Claimant not required to exhaust issues
- Insurer’s own guidelines dismissed as not binding
- Court rethinks its approach after Glenn ruling
- Appeals court clarifies factors for fee awards
- Judge sees importance of discovery ruling
- Ruling underscores value of treating doctor’s opinion
- Bankruptcy Omission Led to Estoppel
- Ruling means end for lenient regime of reviews
- Ruling shows problems with review system
- Offset ruling beneficial to claimants
- Court prevents review of doctor’s report
- The year in employee benefits
- Court finds conflict in insurer, reviewer relationship
- Struggle over ‘mental illness’ exclusions
- Court Nixes Insurer Offset for Dependent SSA Benefits
- Rulings uphold State power over review clauses
- A Painful Burden For Disability Claimants
- 10th Circuit sticks to ‘review proceeding
- Occupation review should look into the past
- Wrongly used standard can deny worthy benefits
- Examining the nature of illness and injury
- Credibility should have been the issue in review
- Benefit plan took the necessary steps
- Court refuses to rubber-stamp denial
- Line between ‘job’ and ‘occupation’
- 7th Circuit Ruling puts ERISA litigation back on track
- Ruling restores some balance to ERISA cases
- Unfair ruling against reasoning behind ERISA
- Insured’s silence not enough
- No reason to deny jury trials for ERISA claims
- Insurance adjuster wins bid for disability benefits
- Big Step Toward Clearing Up ERISA Litigation
- Is expediency more important than accuracy?
- Ruling on scope, standard of review disturbing
- Right result, but confusing reasoning
- Insurer can’t ‘cherry pick’ medical report
- Insurer can’t keep manual from claimant
- Work ability more than just physical
- Opinion aberrational on work definition
- Standard of review didn’t prevent reversal
- Oversights led to offsets for veteran’s benefits
- Court misunderstands definitions
- Court issues important case on attorney fees
- Judge has neither love nor mercy for ERISA
- Where Social Security, insurance meet
- Court misses the mark on disability
- Ruling gives benefits, but not lawyer fees
- Court tries to end discretion debate
- Remand Didn’t Help Where Plan Was At Fault
- Decision begins to explain problems with ERISA litigation
- Attorney’s fees not enough to deter bad denials
- Benefit payment decisions should not be left up to the Insurers
- Conflicted over conflicts of interest
- Case shows it’s not ‘all or none’ for disability
- Court tackles ‘church plan,’ ‘self-reporting’ case
- Court too quick to allow in report
- Defining ‘disability’ means looking at duties
- Courts Seek Clarity on Subjective Diseases
- Who decides whether treatment is appropriate?
- What happens when ‘no good deed goes unpunished’?
- Ruling points out difficulties of assessing disability
- Courts struggle with when limitation periods accrue
- 5 factors give courts help in reviewing ERISA cases
- Claims within framework of federal civil procedure
- The challenges in calculating disability benefits
- Courts consider who can be sued as the defendant
- Contingency fee representation uncertain
- How do courts weigh conflicts of interest
- Court takes controversial position in Pettaway
- Determining when a cause of action accrues
- Ruling addresses policy limitations
- Does insurer get offset from VA disability benefits
- Return to work can create benefits controversy
- McCutchen may influence other court decisions
- Court looks at critical issues involving syndrome
- Approach clarifies benefit claim determinations
- Court reconsiders remanded benefit case
- Deferential review process needs fair standards
- 9th Circuit weighs statutory requirement failure
- Surprising ruling finds Unum’s interpretation capricious
- Circuit courts split over meaning of ERISA’s de novo standard
- Several circuits remain divided over remand orders in ERISA cases
- Case shows difficulty in assessing impact pain or fatigue has on job
- Court says Liberty made decision apparently devoid of reasoning
- Discovery proves useful in ERISA cases
- Supreme Court reviews ERISA litigation opens door for overhaul
- Courts see more accidental death claims
- Ruling looks at professionals paying for two types of disability coverage
- Aschermann v. Aetna Life Ins.Co.
- Stephan v. Unum Life Ins.Co
- Past Casenotes of the Month
- Anderson v. Sun Life Assur.Co. of Canada
- Ayers v. Life Ins.Co. of North America
- Ayotte v. Prudential
- Beckstrand V Electronic Arts Group Ltd Plan
- Burton V Unum Life Ins Co Of America
- Buzzanga v. Life Ins.Co. of N.Amer.
- Carstens V United States Shoe Corporations Ltd Plan
- Chronister V Unum Life
- Ettel V Unum Life Insco Of America
- Fairbaugh V Life Insco Of North Americ
- Flom V Holly Corp
- Fontana V Guardian Life Ins
- Garon v. Unum Life Ins.Co.
- Garvey V Piper Rudnick Llp Ltd Plan
- Gavin v. Life Ins.Co. of North America
- Gessling V Group Ltd Plan For Employees Of Sprint United Management co
- Haines-reliance
- Harper V Reliance Standard Life
- Harrison V Prudential
- Juszynski V Life Ins Co Of North America
- Krupp v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston, 2013
- Lavino V Metropolitan Life
- Leger V Tribune Co Ltd Benefit Plan
- Lockhart V Jefferson Pilot
- Macnally V Life
- Majeski V Metropolitan Life
- McLaren-Knipfer v. Arvinmeritor, Inc.,
- Monkhouse V Stanley Associates Inc Std Income Plan
- Nolan V Heald College
- Perryman V Provident Life Accid
- Rappa V Connecticut General Life Insco
- Raybourne V Cigna
- Raybourne v. CIGNA Life Ins.Co. of N.Y.
- Sacks V Standard
- Saffon V Wells Fargo Co Long Term Disability Plan
- Smith V Champion Intl Corp
- Smith V Novelis
- Tate V Champion Intl Corp
- Toth V Ina Life Ins Co Of New york
- Wakkinen V Unum Life Insco Of Amer
- Williams V Group Ltd Insurance
- Mead v. Reliastar Life Ins.Co
- Holmstrom v. Metro.Life Ins.Co
- Robinson v. Unum
- Kaplan v. Northwestern Mutual
- Darland v. Fortis
- Black & Decker v. Nord
- Rosenbaum v. Unum
- Lasser v. Reliance
- McDonald v. Western-Southern
- Budford v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America
- Crespo v. Unum Life Insur. Co. of America
- Fought v. Unum Life Insur. Co. of America
- Osbun v. Auburn Foundry, Inc.
- Hillock v. Continental Casualty Co.
- Toth v. INA Life Ins.Co. of New York
- Rigg v. Continental Casualty Co.
- Smith v. Continental Casualty Co.
- Hangarter v. Provident Life and Accident Insur.Co.
- Glista v. Unum Life Insur.Co. of America
- Welch v. Unum Life Insur.Co. of America
- Loucks v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston
- Hedeen v. Aon Corp.
- Gessling v. Group LTD Plan for Employees of Sprint/United Management Co.
- Byrom v. Delta Family Care Disability and Survivorship Plan
- Mullaly v. Boise Cascade Corp. Long Term Disability Plan
- Abram v. Cargill, Inc.
- Desrosiers v. Hartford Life and Accident Insur.Co.
- Palmiotti v. Metropolitan Life Insur.Co.
- Neiheisel v. AK Steel Corporation
- Abdel-Malek v. Life Insur.Co. of North America
- Dowdle v. National Life Insur. Co.
- Ruttenberg v. U.S. Life Insur. Co. in the City of New York
- Nickola v. CNA Group Assurance Co.
- Wible v. Aetna Life Insur.Co.
- Diaz v. Prudential Insur.Co. of America
- Marconi v. Chicago Heights Police Pension Board
- Rabuck v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins.Co.
- Hurley v. First Unum Life Insur. Co.
- Rudzinski v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
- Seitz v. Metropolitan Life Insur. Co.
- King v. CIGNA Corp.
- Semien v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
- Barker v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins.Co.
- Vick v. Metropolitan Life Insur.Co.
- Combe v. Life Ins.Co. of North America
- Addis v. The Limited Long-Term Disability Program
- Sanders v. Unum Life Ins.Co. of America
- Crist v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston
- Marszalek v. Marszalek & Marszalek Plan
- Lauth v. Prudential Insur.Co. of America
- Denmark v. Liberty Life Assur.Co. of Boston
- Zanny v. Kellogg Company
- Torgeson v. Unum Life Insur. Co. of America
- Billings v. Unum Life Insur. Co. of America
- Pfluger v. U.S. Group Long-Term Disability Ins. Plan
- Feibusch v. Integrated Device Tech., Inc. Employee Benefit Plan
- Baker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
- Hine v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
- Torgeson v. Unum Life Ins.Co. of America
- Linnen v. Hartford Life and Accident Insur. Co.
- Price v. Hartford Life & accid.Ins.Co.
- DuPerry v. Life Ins.Co. of North America
- Ball V Standard Ins.CO
- Functional Capacity Evaluation, Job versus Occupation, Pain, Selective Review of Evidence
- Grabowski v Lincoln
- Barrett v Sedgwick
- McDonnell v. First Unum
- Sconiers v. First Unum
- Kelly v Reliance
- Curtis v Hartford
- Kirkpatrick v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc.
- Erisa ‘full and fair’ review of voluntary appeals
- Impact of Fee-Shifting Awards for Partial Success
- More Links
- Fitts V Federal National Mortgage Association Case Review
- What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Disability Insurance
- Winning Your Disability Claim Fibromyalgia
- Gisbrecht v. Barnhart Contingent fees prevail over Lodestar method
- Moran v. Rush-Prudential HMO, Inc. – The New Paradigm of ERISA Preemption
- So You’re Stuck With ERISA-Now What?
- Regula v. Delta case review
- ERISA, The ADA and Insurance What is Your Client Entitled To?
- A Physician’s Guide to Disability Insurance
- More Quick Informational Links
- Quick Informational Links
- Informational Resource 1
- Informational Resource 2
- Click Here for a Consultation
- Informational Resource 3
- Informational Resource 4
- Informational Resource 5
- Casenote of the Month
- Articles by Mark D. DeBofsky
- Client Center
- Blog
- Contact Us
- Maps & Directions
- Disclaimer
