Long Term Disability Insurer Must Consider Subjective Pain Under ERISA
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Aug 3, 2010
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a long term disability insurance carrier must consider a plaintiff’s subjective pain under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The ruling may open the door to those who have become disabled, but cannot substantiate their disability with objective medical evidence.
An important ERISA case
The facts of the case before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals are fairly straight forward. The plaintiff in the case, a former television station manager, had received long term disability benefits from her insurance company for several years. However, the insurer eventually terminated her benefits claiming that her condition, osteoarthritis in both of her knees, had improved enough that she could go back to work at a desk job.
Although the plaintiff could not provide any objective medical evidence to prove that she was still disabled, she sued the insurance company alleging that her subjective pain was enough for the insurer to continue her benefits.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with her and ruled that an insurance company must consider a plaintiff’s subjective pain. It stated:
[E]ven if the source of pain cannot be located, it nonetheless can be real. Furthermore, here the plan ignored the evidence in the [Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE)] that [the plaintiff’s] complaints of pain were reliable. Under these circumstances, we believe it was incumbent on the plan (or the plan’s consultant) to do more than just dismiss the complaints out of hand. Instead, the plan must explain why, despite evidence to the contrary in the FCE, it nevertheless finds [the plaintiff’s] complaints of pain unreliable and why, if the complaints in fact are reliable, the pain [the plaintiff] is experiencing is not completely debilitating.
The holding of the case is important to anyone who is on long term disability. While most disability claims can be supported by objective medical testing and evidence, some cannot. This case may open the door for others who have been denied valid long term disability payments simply because current medical technology can’t validate their pain by objective means.