If you have The Hartford long-term disability,

you may be wondering if The Hartford denies all long-term disability claims.

Does The Hartford Deny All Long-Term Disability Claims?

The Hartford has developed its own specific “playbook” for denying LTD claims that has been particularly effective with claims that are based primarily on symptoms of pain and fatigue. Many if not most individuals who become disabled due to physical conditions are not disabled because of the condition itself, but rather due to the pain and fatigue that results from that condition or combination of conditions.

Although it is commonly recognized that symptoms of pain and fatigue flow from certain conditions, there are few if any objective means for measuring the severity of those symptoms or the degree to which they produce impairments of work activities. These claims depend heavily on the claimant’s own credibility and consistency. Hartford’s internal Special Investigation Unit (SIU) has established a multi-step process designed to attack these claims.

If your condition relies on the self-reporting of symptoms to your doctor, The Hartford will likely deny your claim based on the lack of “medical evidence”. This is regardless of whether your doctor has signed off on your treatment, is currently treating you for the condition, or has no doubt in his or her mind that you suffer from the condition.

How The Hartford Denies Disability Claims

First, Hartford conducts hidden video surveillance of the claimant’s activities. Next, a Hartford investigator interviews the claimant (who is unaware of the surveillance) to obtain statements from the claimant about his or her normal daily or weekly activities. Finally, Hartford sends the surveillance, claimant statements and medical records to one of the outside companies it regularly uses for a review. The idea, of course, is to “catch” the claimant performing activities that the claimant disavows, which Hartford offers both as proof of the claimant’s ability to perform more strenuous activity and to impeach the claimant’s overall credibility.

Video can be powerful evidence and Hartford not only uses it for its own medical reviews, but also frequently sends the video to a claimant’s treating physician to try to change opinions that support the claim. Hartford has enjoyed a great deal of success in obtaining court approval of decisions to not only deny new claims, but also to terminate payments on claims that it has already approved through this process. Not surprisingly, however, Hartford routinely abuses this process to further its own economic interests.

Selectively Editing Videos to Prove Clients Misrepresented Their Capabilities

Hartford frequently focuses on a few minutes of activity to suggest that a claimant is capable of similarly strenuous activities over long periods of time. In one case in which a district court found Hartford’s methods to be arbitrary and capricious, the court noted that Hartford’s private investigator had only filmed the claimant engaging in a total of 11 minutes of activity outside the home over the course of 42 hours of surveillance.

Hertz v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 3:12-CV-00141-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. 1/9/14). That court also aptly observed that Hartford regularly used that particular private investigator firm and it was “at least plausible that these financial ties incentivized [the investigator] to record those portions of… activity that most convincingly portrayed her as a non-disabled person….”

Another example of Hartford’s misuse of the surveillance is where the video shows the claimant performing activities that are no greater than those for which the claimant’s physician has released her to perform. See eg. Bertelsen v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 2:12-CV-01440-TLN-GCH (E. D. Cal. 2/13/14). Hartford nevertheless uses the video in order to obtain opinions from its consulting physicians that the claimant can do even more. Hartford’s use of video can present an extremely difficult hurdle in a disability insurance case; however, a diligent and experienced practitioner can frequently reveal the misuse of this evidence.

Federal Courts Often Labor Under the False Notion That Insurance Companies Will Act Impartially

Perhaps the insurer’s greatest advantage in defending a claim under a long term disability policy governed by ERISA is the policy language that invariably reserves to the insurer discretion to make determinations of benefits under the policy. Federal courts enforce that language by giving deference to the insurer’s decision and will overturn that decision only where it is found to be arbitrary and capricious.

A limited exception to that standard applies where the insurer’s financial conflict of interest in both insuring the payments of claims and deciding whether to pay those claims has an effect on its decision-making process. Of course it does.

However, courts continue to labor under a false notion that an insurance company can somehow ignore its conflict and act impartially. Hartford routinely offers affidavits from management that tout purported steps it takes to insulate the decision-makers from the obvious influences of this conflict.

Hartford Claim Handlers Are Well Aware of the Benefit of Denying Claims

In the mid 1990s, internal Hartford documents showed that Hartford routinely evaluated and incentivized its claims handlers based on their performance in areas such as the numbers of claimants they could return to work “RTW” and the frequency with which they procured opinions from claimants’ treating physicians of the claimants’ “functionality” thereby moving the claimants off claim and saving the company money. Documents uncovered in more recent cases show that Hartford’s claim handlers are still very much aware of the financial impact that their decisions have for the company.

In Hertz v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., the court was persuaded by internal Hartford documentation showing that Hartford continued to evaluate its claim handlers on the frequency with which they referred claimants to its SIU unit for surveillance, which Hartford referred to as a “cost containment program,” and based on the number of claims the evaluator “closes.”

That court was also troubled by Hartford’s close relationship with the MLS Group, the company that routinely provides the physicians who review surveillance videos and medical records for Hartford. The court noted that a sampling of the 752 medical reviews MLS had conducted for Hartford from January 2010 and November 6, 2012 revealed that approximately 95% of the time, the physician reviewing the file for Hartford found that the claimant could perform some work. When facts like these are proven, it becomes more clear that Hartford’s purported role as a plan fiduciary gives way to its own conflict of interest in these claims.

Bad Faith Denials in Long Term Disability Claims

Insurance companies such as Hartford have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of their policyholders. However, that responsibility is in direct conflict with their profit margin. If an insurance company can find any reason to deny your claim, they will do it whether it’s in your best interests or not. In cases where they do this capriciously, you can turn around and claim that they have acted in bad faith and failed their duty of care to their policyholder. You can, in fact, sue them on that basis and recover damages related to any losses you incurred due to their denial. You can also appeal. To learn more about appeals, read our article Should I Handle My Own Appeal?

In some cases, insurance companies won’t deny your claim outright but ask for bad faith extensions. Since these policies need to be processed on a time table, they manufacture extensions with repeated requests for more information. Red flags include:

  • Requests for examinations from doctors in an unrelated specialty;
  • Requests for information that they already have; or
  • Failing to make a prompt decision or requesting more time.

Additionally, Hartford claims adjusters may deny an otherwise valid claim for specious reasons.

Talk to a Hartford Disability Denial Attorney

Applying for disability coverage can be an enervating process to begin with. Repeated requests for information and seemingly endless doctors examinations are meant to exhaust you. Making the process as difficult as they possibly can ensures that only those who really need the disability payments are paid in the end. But don’t think for one second they will give their money away freely and easily. Nonetheless, they’ve been collecting that money from you or your employer for decades. You are entitled to receive the benefits of that policy when you need it. At Robinson & Warncke, we can help take the burden off your shoulders and file the claim for you. Contact us today to learn more.

Get Help

No matter what stage you are in with your Hartford Long-term disability claim, you need to hire a disability attorney.
The Hartford does not play fair, so you need a professional on your side. Contact us today!

Testimonials

I highly recommend this firm for anyone going through a disabling condition and filing for company long term disability benefits. Doug and Ginger offered steadiness and expertise during a very stressful period of my life.

Alison F.

I have been able to focus more on my health and worry much less about navigating critical deadlines. I am very appreciative of the support that I receive from this firm.

Alison F.

Jeff Warncke and his firm were well familiar with my particular legal issues and performed exceptionally. I am thrilled to have been represented by the firm. I recommend them highly.

Sherwin R.

Jeff and the wonderful people in his office are the kindest and most empathetic I have ever worked with and I am very grateful. I highly recommend ESW&W.

Lynne J.

I have been using Mr Warncke for years and have always been able to rely on him for my needs. Every time I have a need, even for a new lawyer I contact him for the info I need.

David W.

MORE THAN

0
PEOPLE HELPED

MORE THAN

$0
MILLION WON

MORE THAN

0%+
TRIALS WON
or fill out the form below to e-mail us.