In an ironic and unfortunate turn of events, an attorney at one of the law firms that represents Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company and its related entities in ERISA disability benefits litigation all over the country had his claim for long-term disability (“LTD”) benefits denied by First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company under his law firm’s ERISA-regulated employee welfare benefit plan. See John Scott Burris, Plaintiff v. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., Defendant, No. 220CV00999CDSBNW, 2024 WL 551937 (D. Nev. Feb. 9, 2024). (Opinion also available here.)
Factual Background
The Plaintiff, Burris, was a defense attorney who does not appear to have represented First Reliance in ERISA litigation. He submitted a claim for LTD benefits under his law firm’s disability benefit plan, which was insured by one of the firm’s significant clients—First Reliance. Burris, suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, argued that his condition rendered him unable to continue his profession, thus entitling him to disability benefits. Despite presenting medical evidence to support his claim, First Reliance contested the sufficiency of this evidence and denied the claim, asserting that Burris did not meet the policy’s definition of disabled.
The court reviewed First Reliance’s adverse claim determination under the arbitrary and capricious standard of review, which is highly deferential to the insurer. The Court examined the medical documentation, expert opinions, and the criteria set forth by the disability plan to determine whether Burris’ condition met the threshold for total disability as defined within the policy. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of First Reliance, granting their motion for judgment.
Proving Claims Based on Self-Reported or Subjective Symptoms Can be Challenging When Reviewed Under Deferential Review
The court’s decision was predicated on the conclusion that Burris failed to conclusively prove his total disability in accordance with the policy’s requirements because his condition was principally based on his self-reported and subjective symptoms. This ruling underscores the challenges faced by claimants in proving disability under ERISA LTD plans, highlighting the strict and often unfair standards applied by courts in evaluating such claims. Given the fact that the defendant was one of his firm’s own clients, the case serves as a poignant example of the complexities inherent in ERISA litigation and the stringent scrutiny applied to disability claims under such federally governed plans.
For those encountering obstacles in their pursuit of ERISA disability benefits, Burris exemplifies the critical need for advocacy, perseverance, and the right legal expertise. It brings to light the invaluable role of dedicated ERISA disability lawyers who possess the knowledge and experience necessary to guide claimants through the arduous process of securing their rightful benefits.
The Garner Firm’s Attorneys May be Able to Help Similar Claimants
The Garner Firm’s attorneys are leaders in the ERISA disability benefits field, offering significant knowledge, experience, and commitment to support to those facing denied ERISA disability claims. With a profound understanding of ERISA litigation and a steadfast commitment to their clients’ success, The Garner Firm’s attorneys are equipped to tackle the most challenging ERISA disability cases, ensuring that claimants receive the justice and benefits they are entitled to. If you or someone you know is struggling with an ERISA disability claim, consider contacting The Garner Firm for guidance and support in fighting for your rights and securing the benefits you rightfully deserve.