In a case with implications for an increasingly important product, a man has launched a lawsuit against MetLife over long-term disability, arguing the carrier “abused its discretion” as plan administrator.
In a case with implications for an increasingly important product, a man has launched a lawsuit against MetLife over long-term disability, arguing the carrier “abused its discretion” as plan administrator.
Albert Chavarria, a Houston resident, filed for disability benefits under a federal government plan created by his employer, DDH Investments, “because his medical condition precluded him from continuing to perform (the) duties of his job on a full-time basis.”
Chavarria is seeking all past and future benefits due to him under his plan, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and attorney fees.
Chavarria argues in his lawsuit that MetLife “abused its discretion” as plan administrator. The suit claims the carrier denied Chavarria’s claim in bad faith, failed to consider “the disabling, synergistic effect” of Chavarria’s medical conditions; and failed to consider his “medical condition in relation to the actual duties of his occupation or of a suitable alternative that would provide substantial earnings.”
The complaint also alleges, “MetLife’s administration of this claim corrupts any reasonable meaning of ‘full and fair review.’”
A court has already found in Chavarria’s favour, ordering MetLife to pay him $1,035.13, plus interest, after the carrier denied his initial claim and his appeal. But the court expressed “no opinion on [Chavarria's] entitlement to long-term disability benefits during the ‘any occupation’ period” under the policy.
Albert Chavarria, a Houston resident, filed for disability benefits under a federal government plan created by his employer, DDH Investments, “because his medical condition precluded him from continuing to perform (the) duties of his job on a full-time basis.”
Chavarria is seeking all past and future benefits due to him under his plan, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs and attorney fees.
Chavarria argues in his lawsuit that MetLife “abused its discretion” as plan administrator. The suit claims the carrier denied Chavarria’s claim in bad faith, failed to consider “the disabling, synergistic effect” of Chavarria’s medical conditions; and failed to consider his “medical condition in relation to the actual duties of his occupation or of a suitable alternative that would provide substantial earnings.”
The complaint also alleges, “MetLife’s administration of this claim corrupts any reasonable meaning of ‘full and fair review.’”
A court has already found in Chavarria’s favour, ordering MetLife to pay him $1,035.13, plus interest, after the carrier denied his initial claim and his appeal. But the court expressed “no opinion on [Chavarria's] entitlement to long-term disability benefits during the ‘any occupation’ period” under the policy.
