When an ERISA Plan Defines a Lawyer’s Specialty, Generic Job Duties Fall Short

The issue: which occupation did the plan require Unum to evaluate?

An insurer reviewing a long-term disability claim may use vocational resources and medical reviews. But those tools must answer the question the plan actually asks. In MacPeak v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Civil No. 24-1650, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219656 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2026), the court held that Unum abused its discretion by evaluating a securities lawyer against the generic duties of an attorney.

Kathleen MacPeak worked as Of Counsel in securities law. Her role involved complex regulatory analysis, drafting documents for investment products, communicating with clients, and supervising junior lawyers. She experienced migraines, cyclical vomiting syndrome, and other conditions. After reducing her hours, she received long-term disability benefits from September 2017 until Unum terminated them in November 2023. She appealed, Unum upheld the termination, and both sides later moved for summary judgment.

The policy language drove the result. Under this particular plan, an attorney’s “regular occupation” was the specialty in the practice of law that the attorney routinely performed when disability began. That attorney-specific language differed from the plan’s definition for non-attorneys, which referred to an occupation as normally performed in the national economy. The distinction is plan-specific and should not be assumed to appear in every disability policy.

Why the generic analysis failed

Unum’s vocational review mentioned securities work, but its analysis used broad attorney duties, including tasks unrelated to MacPeak’s specialty. Its physician reviewers were likewise asked whether she could perform general physical and cognitive demands associated with attorneys. The termination letter relied on that generalized occupational profile and her part-time work.

The court found that this approach conflicted with the plan’s plain language. A passing reference to securities work did not cure an analysis that never measured MacPeak’s limitations against the material and substantial duties of her legal specialty. Because the parties agreed that the plan gave Unum discretionary authority, the court applied abuse-of-discretion review, also described as arbitrary-and-capricious review. Even under that deferential standard, an administrator cannot disregard an express plan definition.

For claimants, the practical lesson is concrete: identify the policy’s precise occupational definition, then connect medical and vocational evidence to the duties that definition makes relevant. Continued part-time work may show what a claimant can still do, but it does not by itself establish an ability to sustain every material duty full-time. Titles and generalized job databases can also obscure the actual cognitive, communication, and supervisory demands of a specialized role. For general background on ERISA disability appeals, see Feden Law Group’s disability practice.

The remedy and its limits

The court granted MacPeak’s motion, denied Unum’s cross-motion, and ordered her benefits reinstated retroactively to the November 2023 termination, with prejudgment interest accrued monthly. The court selected reinstatement because Unum had improperly terminated benefits it had already approved and paid; the case was not treated like an initial denial that would ordinarily be remanded.

This ruling does not mean every occupational-definition error produces reinstatement, that part-time work always supports disability, or that every policy defines attorneys by specialty. The court also did not reach MacPeak’s separate arguments about lack of material medical change or Department of Labor regulations.

If your benefits were terminated after an insurer relied on a generalized occupation description, you may request an initial consultation with Feden Law Group to discuss the policy language and administrative record.

This article provides general information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship or offer legal advice for any specific claim.