Info Library

“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.