Info Library

“Christine” was employed as a data manager at a newspaper when she became terribly ill with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. For more than a year Christine struggled to continue to work, only to find that each day it became more and more difficult.

“Carol” was an engineer at a major communications company. She was required to conduct on-site inspections, sometimes requiring her to crawl through cable tunnels. It was a very demanding job, but she loved it. When Carol became afflicted with Fibromyalgia she attempted a part-time schedule but was ultimately unable to work even in a limited capacity.

“Barbara” was an ambitious young associate attorney at a major law firm. She had been hampered by a degenerative back and spine condition most of her life but was still driven to complete law school and obtain a job at a prestigious law firm. By the time that she reached her early 30’s, however, Barbara could no longer fight her debilitating pain. She stopped work and applied for disability benefits on her own.

“Arnold” was a successful trader at a small brokerage firm reaping the benefits of a strong market. Unfortunately, Arnold was struck in the head during a mugging, and as a result suffered permanent left-sided hearing loss, including conductive as well as high frequency sensorineural hearing losses. Even though Arnold can hold a conversation with someone in a quiet room, he has tremendous difficulty hearing in a noisy environment such as a trading room. The insurance company denied Arnold’s claim for long term disability benefits on the unscientific premise that his hearing deficit could be corrected by a hearing aid.

Riemer Hess commenced a lawsuit on his behalf in Federal court. The Firm prepared a detailed motion for summary judgment arguing that there was substantial scientific evidence establishing that a hearing aid would make Arnold’s hearing loss worse not better. Rather than opposing the Firm’s motion, the insurer approached the Firm for a settlement. A settlement was reached providing Arnold with a substantial lump sum payment.

“Larry” was a senior manager at a major consulting firm. As a result of a series of major stresses in both his personal and professional life, Larry was hospitalized with major depression and suicidal ideation. When the insurance company denied Larry’s claim, Larry hired Riemer Hess to prepare an appeal.

The Firm submitted comprehensive letters from Larry’s treating psychiatrists, who opined that Larry was disabled from any occupation; detailed statements of Larry’s family and co-workers, corroborating his incapacity; and an in depth affidavit from Larry describing how depression slowly but surely made him unable to function and took away all joy in his life. The insurance company still denied Larry’s appeal, asserting that Larry did not submit objective proof of his depression even though it is well known that disability from depression cannot be demonstrated “objectively.”

Riemer Hess immediately commenced a lawsuit on Larry’s behalf in Federal Court. Our persistence eventually convinced the insurer to settle the case. Larry received a substantial lump sum settlement and can now get on with his life.