Welcome! The Info Library is an internet-based resource that addresses in one place your questions and concerns about disability benefits, disability insurers, your illness, your occupation, and filing a claim, appeal or litigation. In other words, a "Wikipedia" for disability claims. If you would like to automatically receive new posts, please subscribe below.
On August 28, 2012, the federal court in Manhattan held that de novo is the appropriate standard of judicial review for New York disability lawyer insurance claims denied by Prudential Insurance Company. This ruling is the first of its kind within the Second Circuit. The decision effectively makes it more difficult for Prudential to deny valid disability claims brought by disabled individuals in New York.
Litigation News Success Stories Insurers Attorneys Fees CIGNA
On August 5, 2009, the Federal District Court in New York City ordered INA Life Insurance Company of New York, a subsidiary of CIGNA, to pay our client $180,466.60 in attorney fees. This award follows a battle for long term Attorney Lawyer New York disability benefits, where the Court found that CIGNA's denial of long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious.
In Jacoby v. Hartford, 254 F.R.D. 477 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), the Federal District in New York City ordered Hartford to produce thousands of pages of documents pertaining to Hartford’s inherent conflict of interest. Rejecting Hartford’s claims of confidentiality and burdensomeness, the Court ordered Hartford to respond to plaintiff’s interrogatories and document demands, including the full production of Hartford’s BMS Claims Manual and SIU Reference Manual. The Court also rejected Hartford’s claim that documents held by its consulting firms Medical Advisory Group and University Disability Consortium were not within its “possession, custody or control.”
This decision is a valuable precedent because it provides a possible solution to the dilemma of being whipsawed between the insurance company and its consultants. When seeking documents, each entity claims that the other has the sole duty of producing the requested documents. In this case, the Court rejected Hartford's assertion that the documents held by its consultants, Medical Advisory Group and University Disability Consortium were outside Hartford's control. The Court ordered Hartford to use its influence with its consultants to obtain the requested documents. The Court held:
On November 3, 2008, Riemer Hess appeared as Panelists at the NY, NJ and CT Regional Conference of the College of Labor & Employment Lawyers. The College is a non-profit professional association honoring the leading lawyers nationwide in the practice of labor and employment law. The team highlighted four paradigm shifts in ERISA law as a result of the Supreme Court's recent case MetLife v. Glenn:
We believe that the MetLife v. Glenn standard of review may turn out to be better for plaintiffs than the de novo standard of review. This is because a de novo review focuses exclusively on the evidence of New York Disability Lawyer, whereas the Glenn standard also focuses on an insurer’s conduct. In MetLife v. Glenn, the Supreme Court upheld a "combination-of-factors method of review." Under such a standard, "any one factor (even the insurer's inherent conflict of interest) will act as a tiebreaker when the other factors are closely balanced."
Riemer Hess LLC, is a firm of ERISA and long term disability attorneys headquartered in New York City. For over 30 years, we have built a thriving practice and national reputation based on our unwavering commitment to protecting and fighting for people with disabilities. We have obtained hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits, settlements, and judgments.
Riemer Hess LLC
275 Madison Avenue
26th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Text Us
