Huge federal court win by Dabdoub Law Firm for a liver transplant surgeon! Click here to read more.

Disability Benefits Termination Reversed By Hartford

The Hartford Insurance Company terminated our client’s long term disability insurance benefits based on a misuse and misinterpretation of an attending physician’s statement and questionnaire. Our objective was to have Hartford reverse its disability benefits termination.

The medical evidence provided to The Hartford unequivocally showed that our client was and continued to be disabled due to the severing of a muscle and artery in his calf that happen two decades prior, as a teenager. As a result of that injury, he continually suffered with ulcers, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism and other threatening conditions. As the result of one of his ulcers, our client had to undergo multiple surgeries which resulted in one-third of his foot being amputated. It was at this time, he was forced to leave his job as an assembly linesman and file for disability.

He received long term disability insurance benefits for about two years, until The Hartford unreasonably terminated his benefits. His medical evidence objectively shows that he is disabled. This is not a case of subjective medical opinions. He has a very debilitating condition that can be objectively defined as disabling.

We filed a disability appeal on his behalf and submitted all relevant medical evidence in support of his continued disability. The Hartford requested a questionnaire from his doctor as a follow up to the physician’s statement. The questionnaire was unclear and naturally produced unclear answers. From there his benefits were terminated.

We argued that the questionnaire which was relied upon to terminate benefits was unclear and unreasonable. The questionnaire simply set out to confuse the doctor on our clients ability to work and support the predetermined conclusion that he was not disabled. Fortunately, we were able to show The Hartford that there is a continued disability and the termination of benefits was wrong. Our client’s appeal was successful and the termination of benefits was reversed.

Because each client’s case is unique and has different facts, results similar to those in other clients’ cases are not guaranteed.