class action law suit against Prudential for LTD

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by Rosetta, Oct 18, 2002.

  1. Rosetta

    Rosetta New Member

    I anyone know if there is a class action law suit against Prudential for denial of LTD benefits, please let me know.
    Mabey this would get the insurance attention.
  2. Rosetta

    Rosetta New Member

    I anyone know if there is a class action law suit against Prudential for denial of LTD benefits, please let me know.
    Mabey this would get the insurance attention.
  3. moewee

    moewee New Member

    It could be your lucky day if you are a Unum, UnumProvident, Paul Revere, or Colonial Life disability policy holder.

    KEEP READING AND REMEMBER WHEN THIS HAPPENS WITH *ONE* COMPANY YOU CAN BET IT HAPPENS TO OTHERS WHO WILL TAKE THE TIME TO STAND UP AND GET IN LINE.

    GOOD LUCK ALL.

    UNUMPROVIDENT CLASS ACTION SUIT

    Jon Holder, Esq., a Maine attorney, has recently filed a class action
    lawsuit on behalf of persons who feel that UnumProvident has unfairly
    denied
    or terminated their long-term disability benefits. He is seeking
    witnesses
    who are willing to go public with their complaints against
    UnumProvident's
    claims review process.
    For more information, contact Jon Holder at telephone 207-774-2899,
    fax
    207-774-9562, or e-mail at jholder@maine.rr.com or
    mcaufield@maine.rr.com.




    Tactics UnumProvident Uses to Not Pay Claims

    UNUMProvident and its subsidiaries Paul Revere, Provident Life and Colonial Life have used a number of methods to look for ways to avoid paying claims. Here is a list of common excuses to not pay disability claims.

    • Using surveillance on claimants to look for evidence against the disability claim, which in rare cases involves questioning friends and neighbors, invading a claimant’s privacy.

    • Requesting repeated independent medical examinations.

    • Using medical consultants who are not expert in the medical condition in question and who are therefore not qualified to determine the extent of the claimed disability.

    • Denying claims without an independent medical examination.

    • Prolonging denial of a claim to produce protracted and expensive litigation for a claimant.

    • Trying to induce a claimant to surrender his or her medical license.

    • Refusing to recognize certain diseases as disabling, such as Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and various mental/nervous disorders.

    • Inadequate medical documentation by a claimant’s attending physician.

    • Paying for residual (partial) disability on a claim for total disability.

    • Denying benefits by alleging that a claimant was not under the regular care of an attending physician.

    • Excluding coverage because of a pre-existing condition prior to the policy.

    • Alleging that the claimant made a misstatement on the initial policy application that affected underwriting, thus voiding the policy.

    • Alleging that a premium payment was late, causing the policy to lapse.

    Dr. McSharry Gives Consolidated Deposition In UnumProvident Lawsuit
    posted September 9, 2002

    The former medical director at UnumProvident who sued the insurance firm alleging that medical personnel were encouraged to deny disability claims was quizzed by a group of attorneys for three days last week.

    Attorneys from across the country had wanted to interview Dr. Patrick Fergal McSharry after he brought the complaint asking compensatory and punitive damages in Hamilton County Circuit Court. The case was later transferred to Federal Court.

    Attorney Harry Burnette said he had received over 60 inquiries from lawyers around the country wanting to take the deposition of Dr. McSharry.

    Numerous attorneys put down subpoenas asking for the McSharry testimony.

    Both UnumProvident and Dr. McSharry objected to the mass depositions.

    Dr. McSharry said he had taken a new position and could not afford to be away from his new employment for a lengthy time.

    Magistrate Bill Carter said in a court memorandum, "Apparently, there are a number of individuals across the country who have been denied benefits under a disability insurance policy purchased from UnumProvident or one of its affiliates and/or administered by UnumProvident who now have lawsuits pending against UnumProvident and/or its affiliates arising from the denial of disability benefits."

    Magistrate Carter ruled that Dr. McSharry would not have to respond to all the requests for depositions. He said, "Requiring Dr. McSharry to be deposed multiple times on the same subject is unacceptable."

    He ruled that Dr. McSharry would be quizzed about six different cases in one consolidated deposition. It took place in Chattanooga last Wednesday-Friday. UnumProvident was to be represented by four attorneys.

    Magistrate Carter said judges in other jurisdictions could decide later whether or not to allow the deposition testimony.

    He would not allow the media at the depositions and said the depositions could not be broadcast over the Internet.

    He gave the plaintiffs a day and a half to interview Dr. McSharry, and gave UnumProvident the same time.

    Dr. McSharry in his suit said he was one of several medical advisors employed by UnumProvident "purportedly to enable it to make valid judgments regarding the disability status of the various claimants."

    The suit says, "Although defendant employed various medical doctors for the ostensible purpose of providing needed medical guidance in reaching benefit decisions, the medical personnel were not truly utilized for that purpose.

    "It was defendant's primary purpose and policy to deny disability claims. The medical advisors were only to be used to provide language and conclusions supporting denial of claims."

    He said medical doctors "were supposed to handle a number of files a day, precluding meaningful analysis."

    The suit says, "The medical doctors were encouraged to use language in their reports that could be used to support denials. If reports were unsatisfactory to that end, the doctors were asked to delete and reword phrases so as not to compromise a denial.

    "Medical doctors were not allowed to ask for further information or to suggest further tests; rather their reviews were supposed to 'stand on the record.' The medical doctors were not supposed to help a claimant 'perfect' a claim."

    The suit says, "It was further defendant's practice and policy to evaluate every medical condition of a claimant in isolation and to render a disability decision on the effects of each isolated condition rather than to consider the restrictions of each condition in conjunction with those of other medical conditions.

    "Defendant expected the medical advisor to render opinions on conditions outside his or her specialty rather than to refer the file to a specialist in the field. It also required the non-specialist to support his training in the particular specialty even where the support required falsification.

    "Although an appeal of a denial is supposed to be reviewed independently and de novo, it is defendant's practice to rely on the original evaluation of the case."

    The plaintiff said in his first five months at UnumProvident he "tried to work out his ethical dilemma with defendant's practices and his role in them by walking a careful line, trying to follow defendant's express rules while still rendering truthful reports.

    "There came a point in time, however, when plaintiff realized he could not maintain his own integrity or contribute integrity to the company as long as he attempted to follow certain rules.

    "At that point, plaintiff let his supervisors know that he would no longer be a part of unethical and illegal practices in the determination of disability benefits."

    The suit claims the firm's practices were "illegal" in several different ways.

    The plaintiff said, after he began writing reports "accurately" that he suffered retaliation. "He endured verbal and written write-ups and warnings. He was subjected to constant criticism and ostracism. His work was routed around him.

    "Plaintiff refused to yield to defendant's coercive tactics and also refused to remain silent about the illegalities of defendant's practices when talking with other medical personnel."

    The suit says he was fired in January for "disruptive behavior."

    Attorney Anita B. Hardeman, who is a partner with attorney Burnette, filed the suit.
  4. Rosetta

    Rosetta New Member

    I am going to write a letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper. This is the time to strike all the other insurance compaines that are guilty of denying and delaying claims.
  5. fiddlepuppy

    fiddlepuppy Guest

    against Prudential that has been going on since last October. My lawyer keeps trying to get some response from them to no avail. I don't think he is trying very hard and I can't get out of my contract with him without going to the Bar.

    Prudential is my LTD carrier and they denied me twice even though I have been approved for SSDI.

    I wish there was a class action suit because I would sure be in it.
  6. contessa

    contessa New Member

    Insurance is a very profitable business. The name of the game is to keep the profits high to draw more stockholders and raise the value of the company even higher. Insurance company questions are designed to deny claims, not pay them. Except for health, accident, fire, death insurance which have a clear reason to pay, disability and liability claims leave a lot of us in the cold. I just had a call this week from my disb insurance company. Guy sounded really concerned and friendly, but I realized his questions were really a quiz to see how much I was really able to do in spite of my disability. There ought to be laws that require guys like this to inform us that they are asking questions relating to our ability to work: Mine were like who helps you with the housework? describe your day for me?(all with so much concern in his voice). I think I'm going to have to write my own book on what to say and when to keep our mouths shut. BIG NOTE: never let your pride tell someone you can manage - we can manage nada without help. Otherwise we're gonners. They will use it to claim if we can do laundry, dishes and cook for the family, we can hold down our jobs. I have learned not to trust 99% of anyone that has a financial interest in my life. And my insurance company is Fortis.
  7. Carlacat

    Carlacat New Member

    I hope they dont give me a hard time.
    Carlacat