212-297-0700
Long term disability claims for management consultants present some unusual challenges.
We have handled a significant number of disability claims involving professionals at McKinsey & Company and Boston Consulting Group, and we see many of the same issues across both firms. One of the biggest is that the actual demands of high-level consulting work can be understated or oversimplified during the disability claim process.
A management consultant may technically work in a “sedentary” occupation. But describing the job that way tells you very little about whether someone can actually perform it.
The work can involve long hours, significant business travel, changing time zones, constant client interaction, presentations, relationship development, high-level analysis, tight deadlines, and the need to remain cognitively sharp throughout the day. At more senior levels, the job may extend well beyond formal meetings. Client dinners, networking, business development, travel, preparation, and ongoing communication can all be part of the occupation.
In claims we have handled involving both McKinsey and BCG professionals, we have seen greater emphasis at times on basic physical or task-based abilities than on the sustained cognitive, travel, and endurance demands of the actual consulting role.
That does not mean every management consulting claim is denied, or that every insurer evaluates these claims in the same way. Many claims are approved. What we have observed are recurring occupational and evidentiary issues that are worth addressing carefully when developing a claim or appeal.
The Occupation Is Much More Than “Sedentary Work”
One of the first things we look at in a management consulting claim is how the occupation has been defined.
The claimant’s actual role and seniority matter. An associate, consultant, engagement manager, project leader, principal, associate partner, and partner may all work in management consulting, but the nature and intensity of their responsibilities can differ substantially.
A generic occupational label can therefore be misleading.
In our McKinsey and BCG cases, we pay particular attention to the nonexertional demands of the occupation: sustained concentration, complex analysis, rapid processing of information, multitasking, presentations, client management, relationship development, deadlines, and the expectation that the consultant remain consistently engaged and responsive.
There is also an endurance component that can be easy to overlook.
It is not enough to ask whether someone can participate in a meeting. Can the person participate in several meetings, prepare for the next one, review complicated materials, respond to client issues, complete additional work later that evening, and then do it again the next day?
For many management consultants, there may be very little room to perform well for an hour and then take an unpredictable break.
A claimant can retain substantial ability and still be unable to meet the actual demands of the occupation.
Travel Can Be A Major Part Of The Disability Analysis
Travel is one of the occupational issues we pay especially close attention to in consulting claims.
Business travel is not simply sitting on an airplane.
It may involve getting to an airport early, navigating terminals, managing luggage, sitting for prolonged periods, changing time zones, sleeping in hotels, maintaining an irregular schedule, attending meetings shortly after arrival, eating with clients, and continuing to work afterward.
The consultant may have to do all of that while managing fatigue, pain, dizziness, cognitive symptoms, medication side effects, or another medical condition.
We have handled claims where travel was a meaningful part of the claimant’s actual work and therefore needed to be addressed directly in the occupational analysis.
Someone may be able to perform computer work from home for several hours under controlled conditions and still be unable to fly to another city, work a demanding client schedule, attend a business dinner, prepare for the next day, and repeat the process.
The actual occupation needs to be evaluated as it was really performed.
Senior Consultants Often Need To Be “On” Far Beyond A Normal Workday
Another issue we focus on is the tendency to reduce cognitive work to basic mental abilities.
Can the claimant understand instructions? Can the claimant communicate? Can the claimant complete tasks on a computer?
Those questions may have some relevance, but they do not capture the level of performance expected in high-level consulting.
Senior consultants often need to process complicated information quickly, respond in real time, shift between subjects, communicate persuasively, manage relationships, solve problems, and maintain credibility with sophisticated clients.
And they need to do it consistently.
The social side of the occupation matters too. Relationship-building does not necessarily occur between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Client dinners, networking, business development, calls across time zones, and other professional obligations may substantially extend the workday.
In the claims we see, those demands are sometimes reduced to a much more ordinary picture of office work.
For an LTD claim, that can leave out some of the most important parts of the occupation.
High-Benefit Claims Warrant Careful Record Development
Management consulting firms often provide substantial disability benefits, particularly for highly compensated professionals.
That makes careful record development especially important.
A significant diagnosis and a supportive physician opinion may be important, but they do not always answer every question relevant to disability.
We generally want the record to explain not only what condition the claimant has, but what the condition prevents the claimant from doing and why those limitations matter in the context of the actual consulting role.
That means developing the medical, functional, and occupational evidence together rather than treating them as separate issues.
For professionals working in demanding consulting positions, the claim is often strongest when all three tell the same story.
A Supportive Doctor May Still Not Be Enough
One pattern we see in consulting claims is disagreement between treating-provider opinions and the insurer’s assessment of the functional evidence.
A treating physician may firmly believe the claimant cannot continue working, while the insurer concludes that the records do not sufficiently support the level of limitation claimed.
We often try to address that issue proactively.
We want treating providers to explain how long activities can be sustained, whether symptoms are predictable, when breaks become necessary, whether the claimant can complete a full day, and what happens when the claimant pushes beyond his or her limits.
For a management consultant, the medical opinion should also connect those restrictions to the actual work.
Can the claimant sustain complex cognitive activity?
Can the claimant remain effective through a long client meeting?
What happens after several hours of screen use?
Can the person tolerate business travel?
Can the claimant work across changing schedules and time zones?
Can the claimant reliably show up and perform at a high level every day?
That last issue is especially important because consulting work often requires consistency and responsiveness in ways that can be difficult to reconcile with unpredictable symptoms.
Functional Evidence Can Be Just As Important As Diagnostic Evidence
We generally want both.
Diagnostic evidence can help establish what condition the claimant has. Functional evidence can help establish what that condition prevents the claimant from doing.
Those are not always the same thing.
Depending on the medical condition, functional evidence may include neuropsychological testing, an FCE, CPET, vestibular testing, or another appropriate assessment.
For example, a claimant may have medical evidence confirming a neurological condition. Neuropsychological testing may provide additional information about processing speed, attention, memory, executive functioning, or cognitive endurance.
A claimant with ME/CFS may need a very different testing strategy from a claimant with an orthopedic or neurological impairment.
The appropriate evidence depends on the condition.
What we try to avoid is a record that proves the claimant has a significant medical condition but never adequately explains why the claimant cannot perform high-level consulting work.
ME/CFS And Fatigue-Based Claims Can Be Particularly Challenging
We have handled multiple consulting claims involving ME/CFS and significant fatigue-related symptoms.
These claims can be difficult because the central functional problem may involve stamina, post-exertional symptoms, cognitive endurance, or an inability to perform consistently rather than a simple loss of physical strength.
That can create a significant disconnect with the occupation.
Someone may be perfectly capable of having a sophisticated conversation for 30 minutes and still be unable to perform high-level consulting work.
The relevant question may be what happens after the first meeting, the second meeting, several hours of computer work, and the cumulative demands of the week.
We also see consultants with anxiety or depression in addition to significant physical illness.
In some cases, the psychiatric symptoms develop alongside or secondary to the physical condition and the exhaustion associated with trying to continue performing a very demanding role while sick.
The medical record should accurately explain the relationship between the conditions when that relationship matters to the claim.
Vocational Evidence Can Be Especially Important For Management Consultants
We use vocational evidence frequently in professional and executive claims, and it can be particularly useful in consulting cases.
A vocational expert can help explain why the claimant’s actual occupation is more demanding than a generic description suggests and why particular medical restrictions interfere with the performance of that work.
We also look beyond formal vocational reports.
A claimant’s calendar may tell an important story. So might travel records.
Performance materials, meeting schedules, client obligations, job descriptions, and other contemporaneous evidence may help establish what the work actually required.
For a senior McKinsey or BCG professional, a calendar showing back-to-back meetings, calls across time zones, business travel, and client obligations may communicate something that the words “management consultant” never will.
We generally want the occupational evidence to be just as developed as the medical evidence.
Daily Activities Are Not The Same As Performing The Occupation
Daily activities may be considered when evaluating functional capacity, but they need context.
A claimant may be able to drive, prepare meals, see friends, exercise at some level, or travel occasionally and still be unable to perform a demanding consulting role.
The comparison needs to make sense.
The ability to fill out a form, go to an appointment, or use a computer at home does not necessarily establish an ability to manage a demanding client engagement.
Nor does attending one social event establish the capacity to sustain the social and cognitive demands of professional relationship-building.
The question is not simply whether the claimant can do things.
It is whether the claimant can reliably perform the things the occupation actually requires.
Return-To Work Efforts May Also Be Part Of The Claim
In the McKinsey and BCG matters we have handled, we have generally seen employers be supportive of employees who want to explore a return to work, including attempts to return on a reduced or part-time schedule.
That can be important for someone who improves enough to test work capacity but does not yet know whether full-time consulting is sustainable.
Of course, every employment situation is different, and no claimant should assume that a particular accommodation or return-to-work arrangement will be available in every case.
From the LTD perspective, a return-to-work attempt should also be documented carefully.
If the claimant returns on reduced hours, what accommodations were provided? Were breaks needed? Did symptoms increase? Was the person able to maintain the schedule consistently? Did working one or two days require substantial recovery afterward? Did the attempt ultimately succeed or fail?
A limited or accommodated work attempt does not necessarily establish the ability to resume the full demands of the occupation.
We also often want the treating providers to remain involved during this process so that the medical record reflects how the return-to-work effort actually went.
How We Would Build A Management Consultant LTD Claim Proactively
If a management consultant knows that a medical condition may force a work stoppage, we would rather develop the important evidence before gaps become points of dispute.
Where medically appropriate, that may start with diagnostic testing.
But we do not stop there.
We also think about functional testing. What evidence can show how the condition affects endurance, cognition, screen tolerance, dexterity, balance, stamina, or another function that matters to the work?
The treating provider should understand the claimant’s actual occupational duties and, ideally, be able to connect the medical and functional evidence to those demands.
The occupational record should also be developed.
What did travel really look like?
How long were the workdays?
How much time was spent in meetings?
What client responsibilities did the claimant have?
Was the claimant regularly working across time zones?
How much business development or relationship management was required?
How often did the claimant need to be away from home?
For more senior consultants, what were the leadership and revenue-generation expectations?
We would rather answer those questions before they become points of dispute.
The Strongest Consulting Claims Connect Three Things
When we handle these claims, we are generally trying to connect three parts of the record.
First is the medical evidence: what condition does the claimant have, and what does the medical evidence show?
Second is the functional evidence: what can the claimant actually sustain, and where does function break down?
Third is the occupational evidence: what did the claimant’s consulting role actually require?
A weakness in any one of those areas can create problems.
Strong medical evidence with an oversimplified occupation may still leave unanswered questions about work capacity.
A detailed occupation without enough functional evidence may not establish how the medical condition interferes with the work.
And a supportive physician opinion without adequate explanation may be given less weight than the claimant expects.
For McKinsey and BCG consultants, we generally want all three pieces telling the same story.
That is particularly important in occupations where the most difficult demands may not be obvious from a standard job description.
The question is not simply whether the consultant can sit at a desk.
It is whether the consultant can still do the job the consulting firm actually required.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Disability benefits and claim requirements depend on the specific plan and policy in effect, the claimant’s role, medical evidence, occupational evidence, and individual circumstances. Policy terms can change, and claimants should review the governing plan documents applicable to their claim.
