Representing Clients Throughout California
No-Cost Consultations

Call or fill out the form below for a
no-cost consultation.

  • Please enter your name.
  • This isn't a valid email address.
    Please enter your email address.
  • This isn't a valid phone number.
    Please enter your phone number.
    You entered an invalid number.
  • Please enter a message.
    Please select an option.
Client Focused. Courtroom Ready.

MS Insurance Lawyers in California

kantor & kantor, llp understand s MS Insurance Issues

If you or a loved one have MS and need help getting health related insurance claims paid, please contact us. Whether you are dealing with an ERISA or non-ERISA governed claim for Disability Health, or Life Insurance, or a claim for Long Term Care benefits, we can help.

For over 20 years we have been successfully representing individuals with MS, both in the appeals of denied claims, and in Federal Court litigation. There is no charge for an initial consultation.


We're ready to hear from you! Call us today to
learn how we can help.


Multiple Sclerosis Cases

Letvinuck v. Aetna Life Ins.Co., 319 Fed.Appx. 661 (9th Cir. June 22, 2011)(unpublished)

In approximately 2003, Letvinuck was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, but continued to work despite symptoms of fatigue and cognitive decline. After attempting to work from home, Letvinuck submitted a claim for disability to her employer's claim administrator, Aetna. Aetna also funds the benefits to be paid under the Plan. Aetna initially approved Letvinuck's claim under the employer funded short term disability phase of the Plan. As Aetna's own liability approached, under the long term phase of the Plan, Aetna terminated Letvinuck's disability benefits. Suit was filed in Federal Court. After a prior remand because the district court failed to apply the appropriate standard of review, the Ninth Circuit again heard plaintiff's appeal because the district court again ruled for Aetna. This time, the court reversed outright based on Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn, 554 U.S. 105, 108 (2008), and Montour v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 588 F.3d 623, 630-31 (9th Cir. 2009). The court found several errors in Aetna's determination: First, Aetna gave no consideration to a Social Security award. Although the court did not deem that award binding on Aetna, "not distinguishing the SSA's contrary conclusion may indicate a failure to consider relevant evidence." Montour, 588 F.3d at 635. The award was not mentioned at all when benefits were denied and only acknowledged, but never distinguished, when the denial was upheld. Although Aetna told the plaintiff after the appeal was denied that Social Security uses different standards, the court ruled that failure to address it offers support that the plan administrator's denial was arbitrary, an abuse of discretion." Salomaa v. Honda Long Term Disability Plan, F.3d , 2011 WL 2040934, at *11 (9th Cir. 2011).

Second, Aetna failed to adequately communicate to Letvinuck what additional material or information was necessary to perfect her claim as required by ERISA according to Saffon v. Wells Fargo & Co. Long Term Disability Plan, 522 F.3d 863, 870 (9th Cir. 2008). Aetna never told the plaintiff what was missing at a time when she could have obtained and submitted such documentation. Although Aetna left a voice mail with her treating doctor seeking "clinically objective findings," that was not enough according to Saffon, 522 F.3d at 873 (communicating with a doctor rather than the Plan participant is not meaningful dialogue). Aetna also denied benefits without examining her. As Montour held, a "pure paper" review of a Plan participant's claim "raises questions about the thoroughness and accuracy of the benefits determination." Because Aetna failed to engage in "a meaningful dialogue" with the claimant, its decision was deficient.

For those reasons, Aetna's decision was viewed "with a high level of skepticism" which caused the court to conclude that Aetna abused its discretion in denying benefits.

The court thus held Aetna based its denial of benefits on the absence of specific medical evidence - evidence that Aetna did not tell Letvinuck she should obtain and send to Aetna to perfect her claim. Aetna did not meaningfully explain why it disagreed with the SSA's award of disability benefits, and only attempted to do so when Letvinuck called Aetna after it had already denied her appeal. Therefore, we reverse the district court's judgment in favor of Aetna and remand to the district court with instructions to direct an award of benefits.

Discussion - Although this ruling is unpublished and therefore non-precedential, it is still extremely instructive. The two key issues raised by the court (failure to distinguish Social Security and failure to inform the claimant what evidence is needed), along with the sub-issue – the skepticism raised by a pure paper review and lack of examination – are major points to keep in mind as a checklist in future litigation.

Kreeger v. Life Insurance company of North America, (C.D. Cal. 2011) 766 F.Supp.2d 991

Margaret Kreeger, a 57–year–old woman who formerly held a high level position as in-house counsel at BP Corporation North America, Inc. (“BP”), suffers from multiple sclerosis (“MS”). The condition was first diagnosed in 1988, but Ms. Kreeger managed to continue working without accommodation for ten years. In 1998, due to the progress of the disease, Ms. Kreeger's work schedule was modified to permit her to work three days at the office and to tele-commute two days each week. However, in December 2005, due to further deterioration in her condition, including distress due to memory dysfunction, chronic depression, anxiety and pathological fatigue, she was no longer able to work. In May 2006, Ms. Kreeger applied for long term disability benefits pursuant to her employee benefits plan and began receiving her requested benefits a month later. Life Insurance Company of North America (“LINA”), which funded and administered the disability benefits plan, approved the application. However, on May 8, 2008, LINA notified Ms. Kreeger it was terminating her benefits effective April 30, 2008. While Ms. Kreeger sought to reverse this decision on appeal, LINA affirmed its denial of benefits on October 29, 2008. Ms. Kreeger retained Kantor & Kantor, LLP to commence legal action against LINA. A complaint was filed in U.S. District Court on November 12, 2009, alleging a cause of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). In that action, Ms. Kreeger contended that Defendants LINA and BP Welfare Plan Trust–III's Insurance Plan wrongfully terminated her benefit payments. She sought reinstatement of those benefits, payment of back benefits, and interest to the date of Judgment. On February 28, 2011, the Court found for Ms. Kreeger and ordered Defendants to pay benefits. The Court’s order was based primarily on the fact tht LINA failed to act fairly and reasonably in administering Ms. Kreeger’s claim because it failed to 1) conduct a medical exam of Ms. Kreeger; 2) Provide all relevant medical evidence to the doctors it hired to review her records; 3) give reasonable consideration that the Social Security Administration’s award of disability benefits; 4) appeared to be motivated by protecting its own financial interests and failed to show that any measures had been taken to minimize the effects of that financial bias.

Gullige v. Hartford

Ms. Gullidge was a former Title Examiner for First American Title and participated in her employer’s long term disability plan. Ms. Gullidge was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in the early 1980's, but continued to work until 2002. She submitted a claim for disability benefits due to her progressive weakness and fatigue. Hartford Insurance Company approved of plaintiff’s claim and Ms. Gullidge was also awarded Social Security disability benefits. Hartford then sent a confusing letter to Ms. Gullidge’s physician, asking him if Ms. Gullidge could perform “sedentary work,” even if she could only sit for less than 3 hours a day. The physician misunderstood the letter and then later corrected his statement and advised Hartford that Ms. Gullidge was absolutely disabled. Hartford refused to accept the correction and terminated plaintiff’s benefits.
After litigating the case for several months, Hartford unilaterally decided to reverse its claim decision and reinstated Ms. Gullidge to her benefits.

Although we are located in California, we have associations with lawyers throughout the United States who can help us help you. Contact us today. 

What Sets Us Apart?

  • Free Case Consultations Provided
  • 160+ Years' Collective Experience
  • Thousands Of Cases Successfully Handled
  • You Don't Pay Us Unless We Recover Your Claim
  • Selected For Inclusion In The List Of Super Lawyers®

Client Testimonials

  • The arguments you made on our behalf at the mediation resulted in a more positive outcome for our case than we could have otherwise expected.

    “We appreciate that you found merit in our case, and that you were both willing and able to be present at the mediation. We believe that the arguments you made in our favor to the mediator were able to influence the outcome towards resolution that we could feel satisfied with. In the end, we believe that your counsel, your support, and the arguments you made on our behalf at the mediation resulted in a more positive outcome for our case than we could have otherwise expected. Throughout you were always professional, but direct and clearly firm on our position. We thank you for your efforts to resolve our dispute to our satisfaction, and wish you continued success.”

    Mara T.

  • Finding, and working with your team has been such a blessing to me.

    “Thanks again for all your help. Finding, and working with your team has been such a blessing to me. Deepest regards.”

    M.

  • Thank you for being lawyers with a heart.

    “Thank you for being lawyers with a heart.”

    Miriam T.

  • There are no words that can express the feelings of gratitude and relief I have that you helped us.

    “I wanted to thank you again for all of your help. My daughter would not be in treatment without your help. I can never thank you enough, there are no words that can express the feelings of gratitude and relief I have that you helped us, and I believe saved my little girl. Taking her back to Timberline Knolls was very difficult in many ways, I wish UBH could know the damage they have done to her by having her go in and out like this. When she went into Timberline Knolls the first time she was not happy to go exactly, no one wants to go into treatment, but she was open to going in and ready, for the first time, to really look at her issues and work hard to get better. When she had to leave Timberline she expressed that she wished she could have stayed because she felt like she was finally at a place where she was getting better and, though it was hard, she was really opening up and dealing with her issues for the first time, something she has had a hard time doing. I just wanted you to know that she was going down to a really bad place and without you I don't know what would have happened except that she would not be at Timberline Knolls right now getting better and I thought you should know this. With unending gratitude.”

    R.

  • The light at the end of the tunnel was masked, but we found it!

    “I'm sending my heartfelt wishes to you and your team for a wonderful holiday. We celebrate Christmas this year with a lighter heart than past years - knowing how you made a difference for us and for so many others. The light at the end of the tunnel was masked, but we found it! And so, cheers to you and your incredible team. Have a wonderful and safe new year.”

    J.