{"id":24,"date":"2010-11-05T02:18:13","date_gmt":"2010-11-05T02:18:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.logisticsct.com\/iansmithlaw.com\/?p=24"},"modified":"2012-01-21T15:45:41","modified_gmt":"2012-01-21T15:45:41","slug":"notable-published-disability-decisions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/?p=24","title":{"rendered":"Notable Published Disability Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Soucy v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.<\/span>, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27938 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2011)(\u201c. . . Unum\u2019s decision to terminate Soucy\u2019s benefits necessarily imposed a standard that was not required by the LTD Plan\u2019s provisions. . . .\u00a0 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\u2019s benefits. . . .\u00a0 Soucy remains entitled to disability benefits. . . .\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Ian<\/a>Bregman v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co. et al.<\/span>, <\/em>2008 <\/em>U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72500 (D. Conn. Sep. 23, 2008) (\u201cThe 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\u2019s definition even in the absence of the mental conditions from which he also suffered.\u00a0 Bregman is therefore entitled to continuing LTD benefits according to the terms of the policy.\u201d) <\/em><\/p>\n

Mikrut v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America<\/span>, <\/em>2006 WL 3791417 (D. Conn. Dec. 21, 2006) (\u201cMikrut has shown that Unum\u2019s decision was, in fact, influenced by the inherent conflict of an entity that both administers and insures a plan. .\u00a0 .\u00a0 I find that Mikrut is eligible for disability benefits under the plan. .. .\u00a0 Accordingly, Mikrut\u2019s motion for judgment on the administrative record is granted.\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n

Towner v. CIGNA Life Ins. Co. of New York et al.<\/span>, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9877 (D. Conn. Mar. 7, 2006) (\u201cOn the basis of the foregoing evidence, Towner has demonstrated satisfactory proof of his entitlement to LTD benefits under the Pfizer plan.\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n

Trella v. CIGNA Group Ins. et al.<\/span>, 2005 WL 1813278 (D. Conn. June 27, 2005) (\u201cPlaintiff\u2019s discovery requests seek. . . information that could be relevant to determining whether defendants\u2019 review of plaintiff\u2019s claim was tainted by a conflict of interest. . . .\u00a0 Therefore, defendants\u2019 motion for a protective order is denied; plaintiff may seek evidence that defendants were influenced by a conflict of interest.\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n

Selected
\nUnpublished Disability Litigation:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Isaac v. Highmark Life Ins. Co.<\/span>,
\n3:03-cv-1671(JBA) (D. Conn)<\/p>\n

Parisi v. UnumProvident Corp. et al.<\/span>,
\n3:03-cv-1425(DJS) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Maretz v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America et al.<\/span>,
\n3:04-cv-1925(WWE) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Bernat v. Gentex Optics, Inc.<\/span>,
\n04-0058-FDS (D. Mass.)<\/p>\n

Bobrow v. UnumProvident Corp. et al.<\/span>,
\n3:04-cv-02164(SRU) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

US Airways, Inc. et al. v. Ruggiero<\/span>,
\n06-01146-SSM (E.D. Va.)<\/p>\n

Albuck v. Life Ins. Co. of N. America et
\nal.<\/span>,
\n3:06-cv-0166(SRU) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Miner v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of
\nBoston<\/span>, 3:06-cv-256(DJS) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Reese v. CIGNA Life Ins. Co. of NY et
\nal.<\/span>,
\n3:07-cv-87(AWT) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Schumacher v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
\net al.<\/span>, 3:07-cv-230(AHN) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

Girardin v. Life Insurance Co. of N.
\nAmerica<\/span>, 3:11-cv-01564(SRU) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n

DeLorenzo v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of
\nAmerica<\/span>, 3:11-cv-01926(MRK) (D. Conn.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Soucy v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27938 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2011)(\u201c. . . Unum\u2019s decision to terminate Soucy\u2019s benefits necessarily imposed a standard that was not required by the LTD Plan\u2019s provisions. . . .\u00a0 Accordingly, the Court must conclude that no reasonable mind could accept as adequate the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=24"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":43,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24\/revisions\/43"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=24"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=24"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.iansmithlaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=24"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}