Notable Published Disability Decisions

Soucy v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27938 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2011)(“. . . Unum’s decision to terminate Soucy’s benefits necessarily imposed a standard that was not required by the LTD Plan’s provisions. . . .  Accordingly, the Court must conclude that no reasonable mind could accept as adequate the evidence upon which Unum relied to support its decision to terminate Soucy’s benefits. . . .  Soucy remains entitled to disability benefits. . . .”)

Ian Smith workingBregman v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co. et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72500 (D. Conn. Sep. 23, 2008) (“The Court finds that this disability was the result of the combination of physical conditions Bregman suffered, and that Bregman would have been totally disabled under the policy’s definition even in the absence of the mental conditions from which he also suffered.  Bregman is therefore entitled to continuing LTD benefits according to the terms of the policy.”)

Mikrut v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, 2006 WL 3791417 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2006) (“Mikrut has shown that Unum’s decision was, in fact, influenced by the inherent conflict of an entity that both administers and insures a plan. .  .  I find that Mikrut is eligible for disability benefits under the plan. .. .  Accordingly, Mikrut’s motion for judgment on the administrative record is granted.”)

Towner v. CIGNA Life Ins. Co. of New York et al., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9877 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2006) (“On the basis of the foregoing evidence, Towner has demonstrated satisfactory proof of his entitlement to LTD benefits under the Pfizer plan.”)

Trella v. CIGNA Group Ins. et al., 2005 WL 1813278 (D. Conn. June 27, 2005) (“Plaintiff’s discovery requests seek. . . information that could be relevant to determining whether defendants’ review of plaintiff’s claim was tainted by a conflict of interest. . . .  Therefore, defendants’ motion for a protective order is denied; plaintiff may seek evidence that defendants were influenced by a conflict of interest.”)

Unpublished Disability Litigation:

Isaac v. Highmark Life Ins. Co.,
3:03-cv-1671(JBA) (D. Conn)

Parisi v. UnumProvident Corp. et al.,
3:03-cv-1425(DJS) (D. Conn.)

Maretz v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America et al.,
3:04-cv-1925(WWE) (D. Conn.)

Bernat v. Gentex Optics, Inc.,
04-0058-FDS (D. Mass.)

Bobrow v. UnumProvident Corp. et al.,
3:04-cv-02164(SRU) (D. Conn.)

US Airways, Inc. et al. v. Ruggiero,
06-01146-SSM (E.D. Va.)

Albuck v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America et
3:06-cv-0166(SRU) (D. Conn.)

Miner v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of
, 3:06-cv-256(DJS) (D. Conn.)

Reese v. CIGNA Life Ins. Co. of NY et
3:07-cv-87(AWT) (D. Conn.)

Schumacher v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
et al.
, 3:07-cv-230(AHN) (D. Conn.)

Girardin v. Life Insurance Co. of N.
, 3:11-cv-01564(SRU) (D. Conn.)

DeLorenzo v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
, 3:11-cv-01926(MRK) (D. Conn.)

Publications & Lectures

Connecticut Law Tribune, November 23, 2009, “When Employees Do A Dishonest Day’s Work.” (E. Dorenberger & I. Smith)


American Bar Association’s Tort, Trial & Insurance Practice section telephone seminar, May 21, 2008, Mental Illness Clauses in Disability Income Insurance Policies. (Moderator)


Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employment Law Quarterly, Fall 2007, “The Relevance of Social Security Disability Findings in ERISA Disability Insurance Benefit Litigation.”  (D. Morgado & I. Smith)


Connecticut Bar Association Labor & Employment Law Quarterly, Summer 2007, “Doctor Knows Best?  How Courts Weigh Treating Physicians’ Opinions in ERISA Disability Insurance Benefit Litigation.”  (I. Smith)


Journal of Pension Planning and Compliance, Spring 2005 (Vol. 31, No. 1) “Fiduciary Liability for Misrepresentations in the Age of Corporate Downsizing.” (T. Moukawsher & I. Smith)


Connecticut Bar Association seminar, October 7, 2004, The Basics and Beyond: Current Issues in ERISA and Employee Benefits, “Discovery in ERISA Cases.”  (Speaker)


Connecticut Lawyer, February 2004 (Vol. 15, No.5), “Supreme Court Gives Treating Physicians a Demotion.” (T. Moukawsher & I. Smith)


This website is intended only to provide very general information about The Law Offices of Ian O. Smith, LLC, its practice areas and attorneys. The information contained in this website should not be taken as legal advice or construed as any form of legal representation. Visitors to this site should not take any action or rely upon any information contained in this site without first seeking advice of legal counsel. Any transmission or receipt of information contained on this website is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship between visitors and the firm. Additionally, sending e-mail to any of the attorneys at the firm through the use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship.

If you are not currently represented by this firm, any communication sent by you over the internet may not be treated as confidential or privileged information. Therefore, please refrain from sending any confidential documents or information without calling our firm and speaking with one of our attorneys directly.

If you would like additional information about our firm, our attorneys, our practice area or any other questions, please contact us directly at (860) 539-2156.

Nothing in this website is a promise or guarantee about the outcome of any case. We make no promises or guarantees. Cases are decided on their own facts and we cannot imply that our previous success will result in us winning your case.