Court sides with employee in benefits case

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1235780052.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court said Thursday that courts should consider an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when reviewing the denial of an employee's health or disability benefits claim. The court ruled 6-3 in the case of an Ohio woman who sued MetLife Inc. over a disability claim. She contended insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims and that conflict of interest should weigh heavily in employees' favor when they challenge benefit claims in court.

A federal appeals court ordered Wanda Glenn's benefits reinstated. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law imposes a special standard of care on insurers requiring full and fair review of claim denials. Breyer noted that MetLife had emphasized a medical report that favored denial, de-emphasized other reports suggesting benefits should be granted and failed to provide MetLife's vocational and medical experts with all relevant evidence.

Dissenting, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court is using the wrong standard in dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Scalia said there must be evidence that a conflict improperly motivated a denial of benefits. In the MetLife case, there was no such evidence, Scalia said. Justices Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy also dissented.

MetLife administered a disability plan for Sears, where Glenn worked for 14 years. The insurance company paid benefits for two years but in 2002 said her condition had improved and refused to continue the benefit payments. MetLife saved $180,000 by denying Glenn disability benefits until retirement, her lawyers said in court filings.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Glenn's benefits reinstated in September 2006, ruling that MetLife acted under a conflict of interest and made a decision that was not the product of a principled and deliberative reasoning process. MetLife argued that the standard used by the 6th Circuit would encourage participants with dubious claims to file suit, which in turn would raise the costs of benefit plans to both companies and employers.

Related listings

  • Texas court orders execution warrant reinstated

    Texas court orders execution warrant reinstated

    Lawyer Blogs 06/18/2008

    A former topless-club bouncer condemned for a double slaying almost 20 years ago is waiting in a Texas cell not far from the death chamber as his appeals play out in the courts.Charles Dean Hood initially won a reprieve just over an hour before he co...

  • Appeals court refuses to stop gay weddings

    Appeals court refuses to stop gay weddings

    Lawyer Blogs 06/18/2008

    An appeals court has rejected a conservative group's latest effort to stop gay marriages in California before the November election.The Liberty Council had asked a state appeals court to block same-sex weddings until voters could decide the issue on ...

  • Woman pleads not guilty in Internet suicide case

    Woman pleads not guilty in Internet suicide case

    Lawyer Blogs 06/17/2008

    A Missouri woman pleaded not guilty in Los Angeles federal court Monday to charges in an Internet hoax blamed for a 13-year-old girl's suicide. Lori Drew, 49, stood quietly beside her attorney Monday. She pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy a...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read