Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bey v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

February 16, 2017

DARLEMA BEY, Plaintiff,
v.
RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          GENE E.K. PRATTER, United States District Judge

         Pratter, J. February 16, 2017 After receiving occupational disability payments for two years as a result of injuries suffered in an auto accident, Darlema Bey filed this action against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company to challenge its denial of long term disability benefits beyond the initial two-year period. The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment[1] based on the administrative record. After reviewing the motions, arguments, and the administrative record, the Court will grant Reliance's motion and deny Ms. Bey's motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Ms. Bey is a former employee of Virtua Health, which offered an employee benefit plan that included long-term disability coverage through Reliance. Ms. Bey was injured in a car accident in August 2011. By meeting the Policy's initial definition of “total disability”- requiring that she be disabled from performing material duties of her regular occupation-she was awarded long-term disability benefits under the Policy. A.R. 59-60. These benefits were paid for a period of two years, from February 4, 2012 to February 4, 2014. To receive benefits beyond the initial two year period, however, Ms. Bey was required to satisfy a different definition of “total disability” under the Policy. The post-two year definition of “total disability” under the Policy is:

[A]fter a Monthly Benefit has been paid for 24 months, an Insured cannot perform the material duties of any occupation. Any occupation is one that the Insured's education, training or experience will reasonably allow. We consider the Insured Totally Disabled if due to an Injury or Sickness he or she is capable of only performing the material duties on a part-time basis or part of the material duties on a Full-time basis.

         A.R. 11. Further, the Policy included a maximum 24-month limitation for disorders caused, or contributed to, by mental or nervous disorders. See A.R. 24. In other words, in order for Ms. Bey to receive benefits beyond the first two years, she was required to show (1) that she was incapable of performing any occupation she was otherwise qualified for and (2) that a mental or nervous disorder did not contribute to her disability.

         To determine whether Ms. Bey could meet the heightened Policy definitions requirements to receive benefits beyond two years, Reliance obtained and reviewed information in Ms. Bey's claim file. By letter dated December 30, 2014, Reliance notified Ms. Bey that her claim was denied because Reliance had concluded, among other things, that she had transferrable skills that enabled her to perform other occupations.[2] Moreover, Ms. Bey's ongoing treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder triggered the 24-month maximum limitations on disorders to which mental or nervous disorders contributed. A.R. 198-203.

         The letter also explained that, while Ms. Bey was eligible for benefits through February 4, 2014, her benefits were subject to offset by Social Security disability benefits and the offset applied to payments after August 4, Following the adverse determination, Ms. Bey retained counsel and sent several letters to Reliance requesting all information that Reliance relied upon to make its determination. In correspondence between the parties throughout the first half of 2015, Reliance acknowledged that it did not have access to certain medical information while formulating and reaching its initial decision. Also, in addition to other medical appointments, in May 2015, Ms. Bey independently obtained a functional capacity evaluation (“FCE”).

         Ms. Bey formally appealed her termination of benefits on June 15, 2015, and a flurry of communications followed. Reliance requested an independent medical examination (“IME”)[3] in October 2015, and Ms. Bey refused to appear for the examination. Therefore, instead of relying on an IME, Dr. Kelly Allen, reviewed Ms. Bey's medical records and issued a report. Dr. Allen concluded that she “[could] not adequately address the presence or absence of impairment as of 2/4/2014 as [she] [was] not . . . provided the ability to evaluate the claimant.” After she reviewed the records, she concluded that “there were no objective findings” as to the presence of an impairment. A.R. 2563-64. Dr. Allen concluded that Ms. Bey would be able to work on a full-time basis, sitting for seven to eight hours and standing for one to two hours. She also noted that Ms. Bey suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

         Reliance upheld its decision to deny benefits beyond February 2014 in a letter dated January 22, 2016. A.R. 236-45. It explained that Ms. Bey had not met her burden under the Policy to show total disability. The letter detailed that Danielle Ager, Psy.D. performed neuropsychological testing, which Reliance reviewed along with updated reports from Dr. Sackstein, Dr. Matalon, and Dr. Pressman. Reliance again concluded that depression and anxiety played a role in Ms. Bey's condition and noted inconsistencies with respect to Ms. Bey's physical “weakness.” Consequently, Reliance concluded that the heightened definition of total disability and the mental/nervous disorder provision barred additional benefits.

         Reliance referred to the IME request in October 2015 and clarified that it had the right to request an IME “as often as it is reasonably required while a claim is pending.” A.R. 241. And “failure to attend such examination is, in fact, a direct violation of the Policy, and prevents [Reliance] from obtaining an independent opinion based on an examination and review of records, as to her physical ability, or lack thereof.” A.R. 242. In lieu of an IME, Reliance had Ms. Bey's claims reviewed by an independent physician, Dr. Allen, who concluded that Ms. Bey's physical complaints, while documented, did not lead to an objective finding.

         Ms. Bey's complaint here alleges violations of state law for breach of contract and bad faith, as well as ERISA benefit claims and claims for statutory penalties, interest and attorney's fees. These claims were initially brought in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas but were later removed to federal court on the basis of the ERISA count. Reliance answered the ERISA benefit claim and moved to dismiss the remaining claims. The parties later filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The standards by which a court decides a summary judgment motion do not change when the parties file cross-motions. Se. Pa. Transit Auth. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 826 F.Supp. 1506, 1512 (E.D. Pa. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). An issue is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.