California Insurance Litigation Blog

It will not be surprising to many readers of this blog that insurance companies often deny life insurance, health insurance and disability insurance claims.  Many times, insurance companies are wrong in their decisions.   And, sometimes they acknowledge their mistakes.  The question becomes: what are the odds of an insurance company changing its mind and reversing the decision?  Our firm knows firsthand that the odds are extremely good when a reputable and respected law firm is involved in representing the policyholder’s interests.  But that is just our experience.  What is the overall experience when a health insurance claim is denied and a subsequent appeal is filed?  We now have our answer. 

In his article entitled “Don’t take a health insurer’s rejection as the final word on your medical claim,” Tom Murphy of the Associated Press cites a recent report from the Government Accountability Office which found that overall, appeals have an approximately 50% success rate.  The article lists a number of actions policyholders can take to increase the likelihood of success on appeal.  Murphy mentions obtaining and submitting copies of the entire medical file, enlisting a treating doctor to write letters explaining the policyholder’s relevant medical history, understanding policy language, writing a detailed letter with supporting records and information and complying with all deadlines.

One of the most interesting questions in ERISA litigation is: What constitutes the administrative record for purposes of determining whether the administrator abused its discretion in making a claim determination?  Bartholomew v. Unum Life Ins. Co., 579 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (W.D. Wash. 2008) helped answer this question.

Plaintiff, who sued to recover benefits under her long-term disability (LTD) plan, sought to expand the scope of discovery under ERISA by seeking documents outside the Administrative Record. Among others, the Plaintiff requested; “Details of compensation and financial incentives,” “revenue and profitability reports for the last 10 years,” and “[a]ny document discussing the claims handling process published during the last 10 years.” Despite the recent rulings in Abatie allowing weight to be given to structural conflict of interest analysis, the District Court held that Plaintiff was not allowed to engage in a fishing expedition. Here, the discovery requests were not narrowly tailored to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for discovery outside the statutory guidelines was appropriately denied.