Long Term Disability Law Blog

The Supreme Court agreed to hear MetLife's appeal in MetLife v. Glenn. This will perhaps be the most important Supreme Court decision in the area of long term disability claims in decades.

On January 18, 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the arbitrary and capricious standard of review should be tempered or abandoned if the insurance company both decides the claim and pays the benefits. Right now, the Circuit Courts of Appeal have widely different standards. In the Second Circuit, where we practice, such a conflict has no impact on the standard of review. The standard of review is only switched if a plaintiff can demonstrate that the insurance company's conflict of interest in fact influenced the claim determination. Because that is extremely difficult to establish, no plaintiff has ever been able to switch the standard of review based on a conflict of interest. In other Circuits, such as the Third Circuit, the Court will apply a heightened standard of review in the event of an inherent conflict. In Glenn v. MetLife, the Sixth Circuit held that the District Court committed reversible error because it failed to take into account that MetLife was both decider and payor of the claim.

Given the existing standard in the Second Circuit, we are cautiously optimistic that no matter how the Supreme Court decides MetLife v. Glenn, plaintiffs within the Second Circuit will benefit.

If CIGNA, or one of its subsidiaries, denies your long term disability claim, you should send a request to CIGNA demanding a copy of its claims manual. You should ask for it by name; CIGNA calls its claims manual "The Book of Operating Knowledge."

On November 14, 2006, we successfully defeated CIGNA's attempt to prevent disclosure of its Book of Operating Knowledge. In the case of Levy v. INA Life Ins. Co. of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83060 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2006), Judge Gerard E. Lynch denied CIGNA's motion. Judge Lynch explains:

The case for non-disclosure is further undermined by Department of Labor regulations requiring disclosure of procedures employed during claims processing as mandated under section 503 of ERISA. See 29 C.F.R. § § 2560.503-1(g)(1), (h)(2), (i)(5), (j)(5), and (m)(8). Indeed, the Department of Labor "has taken the position that internal rules, guidelines, protocols, or similar criteria would constitute instruments under which a plan is established or operated within the meaning of section 104(b)(4) of ERISA and, as such, must be disclosed to participants and beneficiaries." U.S. Department of Labor, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Benefit Claims Procedure Regulation," C-17, www.dol.gov/ebsa/FAQs/faq_claims_proc_reg.html. These requirements make plain that such claims-handling manuals, whether in whole or piecemeal, are likely to be disseminated widely to plan participants and to litigants challenging benefits denials. Under these circumstances, the effort to protect such materials as confidential is quixotic.

Obtaining CIGNA's Book of Operating Knowledge is often helpful because if CIGNA did not follow its own internal procedures a strong argument could be made that it failed to provide you with a full and fair review.