When Medical Findings Don’t Explain an Ability to Work
A Pennsylvania court sent an SSDI denial back for further proceedings because the record did not adequately support the ALJ’s assessment of the claimant’s work capacity.
Hartford’s “Any Occupation” Review: Why Job Demands and Appeal Records Matter
A recent ERISA disability decision examines Hartford’s appeal handling, retraining assumptions, and proposed job demands. The court returned the claim for renewed review without ordering an immediate benefits award.
Missing Hearing Testimony Can Undermine an SSDI Denial
An incomplete hearing record mattered when an ALJ relied on missing testimony to assess a claimant’s ability to interact at work. A Wisconsin federal court ordered a complete transcript or a new hearing, followed by a new decision.
A Later Diagnosis Needs a Clear Connection to Your Work Limitations
A California court upheld Unum’s termination of a lawyer’s disability benefits despite later diagnoses. The decision shows why medical evidence must explain specific work limitations at the time benefits ended.
When a Partner’s Statement Matters in an SSDI Appeal
In Fain v. Bisignano, the Ninth Circuit explained why an ALJ must give reasons for rejecting competent lay testimony—and why a partner’s specific observations mattered.
When Speaking Limits Matter in an ERISA Disability Claim
Sedentary work can still require more speaking than a claimant can sustain. A recent Florida decision highlights why precise functional evidence and the policy’s governing law matter in an ERISA disability dispute.
SSDI Appeals: Limited Daily Activities Do Not Tell the Whole Story
A California federal court ordered another review of an SSDI denial after finding gaps in how the ALJ evaluated daily activities, normal findings, and brief hearing observations.
Prudential LTD Lawsuit Highlights the Need to Identify the Plan and Explain Entitlement
A New Jersey court dismissed a Prudential disability complaint without prejudice, leaving ERISA coverage unresolved and identifying gaps in the allegations supporting benefits.
When Social Security Ends Benefits, What Has Actually Changed?
A federal court remanded a benefits cessation decision because the ALJ did not meaningfully compare the medical evidence before and after the disability finding.
Lincoln LTD Denial Sent Back for Review: Why Psychiatric Evidence Must Connect to Job Duties
An Ohio court returned a Lincoln disability claim for renewed review, emphasizing psychiatric limitations and safety-sensitive work without awarding benefits.
SSI Remand: The ALJ Must Connect Medical Evidence to the Conclusion
A federal court vacated an SSI denial because the ALJ did not explain how the objective medical evidence supported two agency doctors’ opinions. The claimant won a remand, but several other challenges were rejected.
When an ERISA Plan Defines a Lawyer’s Specialty, Generic Job Duties Fall Short
A federal court held that Unum could not evaluate a securities lawyer’s long-term disability claim using the generic duties of an attorney. The decision shows why a plan’s exact occupational definition can shape both the claim analysis and the remedy.
Why Limited Mental Health Treatment Required a Closer Look
A federal court remanded an SSDI claim after the ALJ relied on limited ongoing mental health treatment without examining whether the claimant’s impairments affected his pursuit of care. The decision illustrates why treatment history must be evaluated in context.
When Everyday Activity Does Not Prove Capacity for Sustained Work
An Oregon federal court reinstated long-term disability benefits after finding that limited hobbies, travel, and about ten minutes of observed outdoor activity did not establish capacity for sustained work. Zayn shows how longitudinal medical evidence puts isolated activities in context.
Why “Occasional” Contact Did Not Resolve a “Superficial” Interaction Limit
An Ohio federal court held that limiting how often a claimant interacts with others does not necessarily address how demanding those interactions may be. Because the ALJ did not explain the omitted restriction or test it with the vocational expert, the case returned for further proceedings.
Seven Years of LTD Benefits Did Not End Aetna’s Review
A Minnesota federal court upheld Aetna’s termination of long-term disability benefits after seven years of payment. Young shows why current functional evidence can matter when an ERISA insurer reexamines an established claim.
When Vocational Testimony Skips the Overhead-Reaching Conflict
A North Carolina federal court ordered further proceedings after the ALJ failed to identify and resolve an apparent conflict between an overhead-reaching restriction and jobs requiring frequent reaching.
When an LTD Carrier Changes Its Vocational Rationale on Appeal
An ERISA appeal should address material changes in vocational evidence, especially when a carrier revises a job’s physical demands.
What a Sentence-Four Remand Means in an SSDI Appeal
Whitt v. Bisignano shows how a sentence-four remand sends an SSDI claim back for additional ALJ review without deciding benefits.
When Disability Isn’t Disputed, Why Can LTD Benefits Still End?
Pankey v. Aetna shows why a financial-records dispute can threaten long-term disability benefits even when the claimant’s physical disability is undisputed.