ERISA Disability and Life Insurance Litigation
Oral arguments from various courts of appeal across the federal circuits involving long term disability or life insurance claims governed by ERISA.
The podcast is a production of Ben Glass Law, a national long term disability and life insurance law firm headquartered in Fairfax, VA.
If you have been denied life insurance or long term disability benefits, we will review your insurance claim denial letter for free.
ERISA Disability and Life Insurance Litigation
Can Sun Life Terminate Disability Benefits Based on One Medical Record's Opinion?
Can an insurance company really decide you're no longer disabled based on just one medical record?
This episode begins with the story of Dr. Rohr, an anesthesiologist who had to stop practicing due to crippling hand and finger tremors in 2007.
After a decade of receiving long-term disability benefits, a controversial 2017 reassessment by Sun Life concluded that his tremors had ceased, causing a heated debate about who must prove that the disability continues.
Hear about Dr. Potts, who initially claimed the tremors were gone, and Dr. Honig, who later confirmed their persistence. We discuss how these discrepancies impacted Sun Life's decision to terminate benefits and their failure to seek further evaluations.
The episode examines the internal biases within Sun Life's communications and the flawed reasoning behind their conditional offer to reconsider the decision if additional proof was provided.
TUNE IN for a straightforward look at how these issues connect in the world of disability benefits.
This is the oral argument in the Eighth circuit court of appeals.
These public domain recordings are brought to you by Ben Glass Law, a national long term disability and life insurance firm headquartered in Fairfax, VA.
By making these recordings into a "podcast," we've made the listening easier for claimants, attorneys and claims adjusters alike.
If long term disability or life insurance benefits have been denied, we'd love to review your denial letter and give you a strategy for moving forward. This is a free service and you can go here to begin submitting your denial letter.
So then there's a doctor several years later that just looks at the record and just simply disagrees and says I just don't see it. Is that new information, medical information that Sun Life can rely on, to say that essentially, he's saying all along you never had enough and so is it your position that Sun Life was within their right to seek reimbursement for all of the payments that Dr Orr received?
Speaker 2:Welcome to this podcast. This podcast is brought to you by Ben Glass Law, a personal injury and long-term disability law firm with headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Listening to Orr arguments is one of the best ways to both learn and stay abreast of the substantive and procedural aspects of practicing law. By putting these public domain recordings into the form of a podcast, Ben Glass Law has made it easy for the public to access these recordings. All commentary that is not part of the actual court proceedings is that of the show's sponsor Number 21-1559, southern Iowa Todd Rohr versus Sun Life.
Speaker 1:Assurance Company of Canada Brady.
Speaker 4:Thank you, ma'am. Please the court, brad Brady. I represent the appellant, dr Todd Rohr, in this appeal of the termination of his long-term disability benefits by Sun Life. Sun Life determined in 2007 that Dr Rohrer's hand and finger tremors prevented him from safely performing the essential duties of an anesthesiologist and, from that point forward, he received consistent evidence of the changed tremors that were characterized as intermittent and slight. On many occasions were permanent tremors that precluded him from performing his job safely. In 2017, sun Life seized upon and mischaracterized a single treatment record from Dr Rohr's provider, in which, on one occasion, he did not observe tremor and concluded that these permanent tremors that had been going on for 12 years at that stage had somehow vanished.
Speaker 1:What about the new evaluations from the additional doctors that Sun Life relied on? Who reviewed the records? How do those play into his burden of establishing his disability month by month?
Speaker 4:His burden, of course, is to produce information as requested by Sun Life, not on his own, your Honor, on his own.
Speaker 1:Your Honor, I'll ask you, since you raised that, is that undisputed? I guess I can ask your opposing counsel, but is it your understanding? That's not something that anybody's disagreeing about.
Speaker 4:I can only quote the policy language Judge, which says that after the initial grant of benefits, then the burden of the claimant is to produce information as requested by Sunlight. Sunlight requested information from Dr Rohr and his providers constantly throughout the course of this case, and Dr Rohr always provided it. He provided the same information from the outset, throughout the entire course of the case, so there's no question that happened. Back to your question a good one about what is the significance of the two additional evaluators in this case. The first evaluation, which was by Dr Potts and was the basis for the initial termination decision, was really based upon a false premise. There's really no other way to look at it. Everybody agrees that an anesthesiologist cannot safely thread catheters and do spinal caps, et cetera, with tremors fine tremors, slight tremors though they may be, intermittent though they may be. The question here is did the tremors go away? That is really the only significant medical question in this case. The answer to that is that they did not. Dr Potts looked at a January 17, 2017 record of Dr Waljit, dr Rohr's longtime trader, record of the Dr Walzik, dr Rohr's longtime trader, where no tremor was observed, and concluded from that, as did the Sun Life claims examiner, margaret Frank that the tremors had disappeared. If you look at I think it's at 2396 and 2418, those are the relevant sections of Dr Potts' report and Margaret Frank's denial letter.
Speaker 4:The sole and overriding reason that the benefits were terminated was a belief that the tremors were gone. Now, that was a, frankly, that was an unreasonable determination in itself. But because the tremors had been determined consistently to be permanent, intermittent, that is, occasionally they didn't show up. Intermittent, that is occasionally they didn't show up. For example, as early as 2007,. At the outset of this case, dr Rohr showed up at his treatment provided. The neurologist at that time and he didn't have tremor. That day the tremors did not go away. And so when Dr Potts said pointing only to that January 17, 2007 note said Tremors are gone, he is no longer impaired, he no longer has impaired manual dexterity and of course, the disability here is a very narrow one. This is a very narrow question here. That makes it unusual. The only question is there evidence that he has impairment in the ability to fine manipulate such that it isn't safe for him to be doing these very delicate tasks? And there's no room for error on this issue. Back to you counsel.
Speaker 5:Counsel, you seem to be subtly shifting the burden from your client. And that wasn't the end of the story. There's also Dr Honig, and then there's Sun Life's offer to reconsider if your client would provide proof of an independent exam.
Speaker 4:All great questions, judge Gratz, and I'm slowly winding my way there. Once Dr Potts and Margaret Frank determined that the tremors had disappeared, dr Rohr went back to his treatment provider and was evaluated. And his treatment provider said observe the tremors, describe them, characterize them. And Dr Rohr then sent that record to Sun Life following the initial decision, before the final decision. In addition, sun Life obtained a second evaluator, that's Dr Honig, whose opinion is frankly inconsistent with that of Dr Potts. Dr Honig gets the report, including the January 2017 report, and says Dr Rohr, he still has tremor, he has a movement disorder. He said I can't tell you anything else about it because he wasn't seeing a neurologist a somewhat different issue that I'll get to but he still has a movement disorder. Now, at that stage, judge, sun Life's basis for terminating the benefits had just fallen apart. The tremors persisted, they were there and their own doctor said I can't tell you anything more about this, including whether Dr Rohr can return to work as an anesthesiologist unless he is first evaluated.
Speaker 6:That does seem to be where he's at. He says there needs to be additional evaluations and by that time there's already been a decision that's been made. And they say but if you present more evidence we'll consider it. Does that cure the problem?
Speaker 4:Judge, we're now at the reconsideration stage and I appreciate that, Judge. Erickson, it jumps a little bit ahead in the chronology.
Speaker 6:I know chronologically, we're jumping ahead because I want to lead into the real question that I've got. If you look at what's going on in here, there are a number of theories as to what may have been going on. There was, at first, the idea that there may have been a Parkinsonism, but because of the lack of progression, that seems unlikely. It seems that there's an assertion that there was an essential tremor, a tremor that cannot be explained any other way, and it says that. And then there's a claim that in intense conversation it appears that the tremor lessens and therefore it may be psychogenic. It doesn't really matter. All tremors are still covered. The only tremor that wouldn't be covered is if there was some evidence of malingering, right, and at this point nobody's made any allegation. That's going on right, and so all you really have is just this one statement that said, I failed to observe a tremor at some point, right and that is really it.
Speaker 4:That is the entirety of the medical evidence on that issue. And it was wrong. And it became obvious that it was wrong when Dr Rohr was subsequently examined and a tremor was detected. So to move ahead to, I think, your question about what then happened how does that speak to the reasonableness of Sun Life's decisions life's decisions? Before the final review Morstone, the reviewer had in his hands a report that said the tremors persisted, and a report from his own experts saying yes, they do, and I can't tell you anything unless you first examine it.
Speaker 4:Now, the only reasonable course for Sun Life at that stage was to reinstate the benefits and, if it wanted to do so, follow their own experts' advice and have Dr Rohr evaluate it Perfectly reasonable thing to do. They had a right to do so under the policy and that would have been a very sensible thing to do. Instead, morris Doan launches into a really what I have described as three covers, three pages of single-spaced material, where he reconstructs this notion that Dr Rohr never had tremors, that he's been faking them all along or exaggerating them. He learned how to do it from his dad and he, as an officer of the corporation, he knew that he was going to have to pay for these benefits pretty soon, so he wanted to get his application. It's really wild speculation, judge, and I have no explanation for that other than bias. It's just very difficult to understand why he did that. Certainly it wasn't reasonable and it wasn't a defensible position. Sunlight conceives in the briefing below that Morristone never should have said those things.
Speaker 1:It was wrong, mr Brady, during the course of Dr Rohr's disability there's back and forth the communication about the fact that he's only seeing the family doctor that then, early on, sun Life wanted him to see some folks he didn't want to see a psychiatrist and a neurologist, a movement disorder specialist. Was there ever anything that could be called an express request by Sun Life to Dr Rohr that was then declined under the terms of this policy?
Speaker 4:Never, your Honor, never did Sun Life ever request, I think, in fairness to Sun Life, I think Sun Life didn't know whether Dr Rohr should get other treatment or not. In 2013, in the midst of this entire process, sunlight determined that they didn't really want a further evaluation because they really expected the evaluation to yield the same result. They thought that a neurologist would examine him, would confirm the presence of tremors, the critical question of fine manipulation skill would still be answered no, and that they wouldn't learn anything more than they were learning from Dr Walgett. But no, to answer your question, and it's a very good one, sun Life never suggested to Dr Roy that his treatment was inappropriate until the final treatment decision. That is a flawed process for several reasons. Most importantly, sun Life, under the regulations, the Code of Federal Regulations, and we cite to them, had a duty before reaching their final duty to give. If they relied upon a new expert, they had to provide a copy of that report to Dr Rohr. And if they relied upon the, if that report reflected a new rationale, as it did, they had to tell them what the new rationale was. So that's in 29 CFR section. I think it's 2603H. I think it's one and two it's a long citation, your Honor, and I apologize for rambling on it, but it's cited in the brief. It's yeah, 29 CFR, 2560.503, parens 1, parens H, parens 4. Contains two requirements. Number one if you have a new report, you have to give it in advance to the claimant so they can respond to the claim. And number two if you have a new rationale, you have to give it to the claimant so they can respond to that rationale. They just didn't do that here. So when Dr Rohr was told in December by Sun Life, we're terminating you because your tremors are gone, that's the fairest reading of Dr Rohr. Was told in December by Sunlight we're terminating you because your tremors are gone, that's the fairest reading of Dr Potson, the only reading of Margaret Frank's letter, the termination letter. He then went out and got proof that his tremors persisted. Then they really completely removed the goalpost back. They completely blindsided him saying no, number one, you never really had tremors all along. We think you've been faking it. But number two, you didn't get appropriate treatment, a notion that he never mentioned until the final treatment decision. That's a violation. It's just a violation of fundamental fairness.
Speaker 4:Judge as well as the Code of Federal Regulations we cite and we got a little bit. We cited, I think, the McConnell case, which is an Alabama district court decision which analyzes this precise issue in this precise context, and Sun Life's only response was to refer to your this court's decision in Midget, which was based upon an entirely different statutory regulatory scheme, that the regulatory scheme here went into effect January 1 of 2017. The regulation that required Sun Life to do this, to give the report and give the rationale in that report, was in effect at the time that this claim was decided. I'm not sure how much you want me to speak to this issue, but we have a bit of a debate with Sun Life concerning whether regulation was in effect. It's clear to me that the regulation requiring the delivery of the report and the rationale was in effect at the time of the decision here and, as the McConnell court noted that this regulatory scheme has its own applicability provisions. They're in section, I think, 4p of the regulation and they really specifically provide that decisions like this on termination of ongoing benefits in this time, within this time period, are governed by the regulations that I just discussed, by the 503 regulations.
Speaker 4:I've really jumped ahead and moved a bit along in the outline Judge, but to return to it. Please interrupt me if questions are much more useful than my comments. Tremors are involuntary muscle disorders and to most people they're an embarrassment or an annoyance. And, by the way, most of the time there is no known cause of tremors, nor is there a known cure for tremors. Aside from the symptomatic medication relief that those who suffer from it periodically take, they aren't a big deal, except if you're a radiologist or an anesthesiologist who's trying to thread a catheter through an infant or insert a needle into the narrow interstitial spaces of the vertebrae to avoid paralyzing someone. And patient safety is what drove Dr Rohr to stop practicing medicine. That sort of concern should be commended, not criticized, and this court and I think the Torres decision looked at similar safety issues in evaluating whether someone could safely perform this specific occupation the 630 Circuit in Kramer, which was an OB-GYN case where an OB-GYN doctor really had difficulty using both of her arms, as is required for delivery of infants.
Speaker 1:Mr Brady, you've extended over your time, so we'll turn it over to.
Speaker 4:I didn't leave any rebuttal. My bad, I wasn't paying any attention. I got Thank you for your.
Speaker 1:We'll swing back to you to see if there's anything you need to respond to after we hear from Ms Wong this podcast is brought to you by Ben Glass Law, a national leader in long-term disability insurance claims.
Speaker 2:We help doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, ceos and other C-suite executives get paid for their long-term disability benefits. Visit us at benglasslawcom or give us a call at 703-591-9829.
Speaker 3:Case Thank you, good afternoon your Honors. May it please the court? Jenny Wang, on behalf of the Appalachian Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, as a claims fiduciary, sun Life had a duty to strictly enforce the written terms of this ERISA plan, and that included the group policy's proof of loss provisions. And in response to your question, judge Kelly, the duty to provide ongoing proof of disability always remained with Dr Rohr, not just when Sun Life specifically asked for it, and I would direct the court to the appendix at page 58, which contains this provision. It says Sun Life will pay you an LTD benefit up to the maximum benefit period if you provide proof that you continue to be totally or partially disabled, and that is followed by the sentence you need to provide proof when Sun Life asks for it.
Speaker 6:But it doesn't say you need to provide proof only when Sun Life asks for it, but if you're accepting proof as acceptable to continue benefits for 10 years, don't you have some obligation to give them some notice that we're now looking for something different?
Speaker 3:Your Honor, that's a very good question, but I would point out that this claim didn't fail because there was some specific piece of information missing. This claim failed because the proof that Dr Rohr provided and the information that Sun Life obtained from esteemed neurologists failed to demonstrate disability, and the burden to substantiate disability always remained with Dr Rohr. It didn't lessen over time by virtue of Sun Life's approval of his claim in prior years and it didn't somehow shift to Sun Life Now. In carrying out its duties under this plan, sun Life had a right to seek opinions from neurologists, especially since Dr Rohr hadn't seen one in 10 years.
Speaker 1:Dr Potts, and to that point and I understand your point that Sun Life can request more information. Maybe they look over this record and say we've just got some questions about whether this disability really is still in effect. But a review of records by a neurologist seems different to me than an examination of Dr Warr by your neurologist. Why is the former sufficient and why wasn't Sun Life? Why didn't Sun Life have some obligation to at least get some more actual evidence, documentary evidence from a physician with an actual examination, with an actual examination.
Speaker 3:When Dr Potts came back with an evaluation that said look, I've reviewed the entire record I'm the only neurologist to have done so in a decade and what I'm seeing tells me that there is not proof of disability here. There's not an obligation for Sun Life to then go ahead and say I think we need another examination on top of that. It would have been a different story had Dr Potts come back and said there isn't sufficient information here for me to be able to make a determination as to whether these tremors are impairing. He didn't say that. He said this evidence to me doesn't demonstrate impairment from fine manual dexterity.
Speaker 1:So I guess that to me seems like a difference, but everyone else was noting through the notes there's a tremor, it's mild. There's a tremor, he can't do his own occupation. So then there's a doctor several years later that just looks at the record and just simply disagrees and says I just don't see it. Is that new information, medical information that Sun Life can rely on to say that essentially, he's saying all along, you never had enough and so is it your position that Sun Life was within their right to seek reimbursement for all of the payments that Dr Ward received.
Speaker 3:Let me clarify, your Honor Sun Life is not seeking the payment of any benefits at this point.
Speaker 1:I know I understand that, but I think initially they did after they saw that note from the treating physician. I'm just curious I don't know how to put this into the evaluation Just one doctor's disagreement with every record on the tremor before, whether he's right or wrong. I don't know how that fits into a disability scheme and who needs to do what next.
Speaker 3:Let me try to clarify that. Your Honor, there does not need to be evidence in the record demonstrating that the tremors improved in order for Sun Life's decision to have been reasonable. In order for it to be reasonable, there just has to be a change in the information that is available to Sun Life, some significant change in the record that was before the administrator and that absolutely existed when Dr Potts, highly qualified, neutral third party neurologist, came back and said the evidence here doesn't demonstrate disability. So it really. When Dr Rohr argues there's no evidence that his tremor improved or disappeared, that really isn't the question to be examined here. The question is was there a reasonable basis for Sun Life to reach the conclusion that it did? And when two board-certified neurologists both come back and say there's not enough information here to demonstrate disability, that was absolutely reasonable. And let me speak to the lone treating physician who was supporting Dr Rohr's disability for 10 years his family practitioner. It wasn't a reliance on a single note in January of 2017 that formed the basis of this decision. When Margaret Frank came on the scene in 2014 and looked at the record, what she saw was Dr Rohr was going to his family practitioner every year for routine checkups. He was continuing to take Parkinson's disease medications that every single neurologist he had ever seen told him he shouldn't be taking because he doesn't have Parkinson's disease. She saw a record in 2014 when Dr Rohr went to see his family practitioner and Dr Walchick said he's got mild hand tremors. They're generally well controlled. There are no new issues. The next year he follows up with his family practitioner again in 2015. And again he notes very minimal tremor. Today, no new problems. Tremors are controlled. He's been very active this summer in Colorado, 2016,. He goes back to his family practitioner. This time it's not even for a tremor at all. He just sees him for a cough. There's no reference to any tremors. Then in January of 2017, he goes back into the family practitioner for a routine physical and at that time he says no focal findings or movement disorder noted. It's a normal physical exam. Follow up with me in 12 months and in this context this is the context in which Ms Frank ordered a review by Dr Potts Dr Potts takes a look at the record, and not only before he finalizes his report he contacts the family practitioner, dr Walchuk.
Speaker 3:He says let me discuss this with you, and the two of them reach an agreement on a number of points. First, they agree Dr Rohr doesn't have Parkinson's disease. He doesn't have any of the physical signs of that condition, including bradykinesia, which is slowness of movement. He doesn't have rigidity. He doesn't have a masked face. Dr Walchik agrees he doesn't have any of these characteristics of the condition. Dr Walchik also agrees there's little to no worsening of Dr Rohr's condition over time. And Dr Potts sends him a letter summarizing their discussion and asks him if you agree with my summary of our discussion, please sign this. Dr Walchick signs it in December of 2017 and says it's accurate.
Speaker 3:Then the claim is denied.
Speaker 3:December of 2017, and says it's accurate.
Speaker 3:Then the claim is denied. And in February of 2018, a couple of months later, dr Rohr goes to see Dr Walchik again, this time post-denial. And now Dr Walchik says, contrary to what he had told Dr Potts just a couple of months earlier, he does have Parkinson's and he has demonstrated the characteristics of that condition, including bradykinesia and cogwheeling rigidity, and that these findings were noticeable over time. So now you have opinions from Dr Walchick, the only person supporting disability, that are directly contrary to what he had told Dr Potts a couple of months earlier and inconsistent with his records from prior years and when Mr Doan is confronted with two neurologists who concur that the evidence in the record is insufficient to demonstrate disability and he's confronted with a lone treating physician's opinion that were demonstrably unreliable, he really couldn't simply ignore that and continue to pay the claim. But he gave Dr Rohr a final opportunity to submit the proof that he was required to submit if he were to qualify for additional benefits. He offered an IME at Sun Life's expense by a specialist and Dr Rohr flatly refused.
Speaker 1:Now, does it matter? That offer was after he was already denied or terminated from his benefits? Right it was, doesn't that matter? It seems to me, if I'm understanding the party's representation of the policy, had they asked him to do that before termination and he refused, sun Life would be in a different, would be in a pretty strong that'd be pretty strong position to say you're not following up with what we've requested, but once you've denied him it doesn't. Would you agree? That's a different posture for Sun.
Speaker 3:Life. It is a different posture, your Honor, and I guess it's more to the point that Mr Brady's point that Mr Doan was somehow biased in his administration of this claim. If he were biased and he were out to deny this claim on any basis that he can, he wouldn't have put his decision at risk by offering an IME At that point. At the time of the final denial, there were two neurologists who said disability wasn't supported. You had an unreliable treating physician opinion. The record was there to demonstrate the reasonableness of the decision. Mr Doan wouldn't have put that decision on the line by offering Dr Rohr another opportunity with an examining physician. Now, all that's. I'm sorry, your Honor.
Speaker 6:Why not? You've got 10 years where you've paid it on certain evidence. That evidence hasn't really changed that much. You say that's a significant change. You've got people that are just looking at the record and now you're saying he wouldn't jeopardize the decisions he's already made because he might find out the truth may be different than what the decision is that he's made. How is that reasonable? Why wouldn't he say no? What I'm going to do now is invoke the policy. I'm going to require you to go out and get an independent medical examination with a neuropsychologist, a neurologist of our choosing.
Speaker 3:That was an option certainly, your Honor, that was available to Sun Life. But Sun Life was not obligated to invoke that policy provision because the burden was always with Dr Rohr. And let me be clear, he made it very clear. He was very upfront with Sun Life from the beginning of the claim back in 2009. He told Sun Life listen, I'm not seeing a neurologist anymore, I'm done with them and I'm happy taking Parkinson's disease medications, even though his neurologist told him he shouldn't, and I'm just going to follow up with my treating physician.
Speaker 3:So this wasn't a situation where there was discussion by Mr Brady about a sharing requirement under the new regulations. By the way, that's completely a wrong analysis. The McConnell court, the Alabama district court in McConnell, simply got it wrong when it held that these new regulations that took effect in 2017 applied to claims filed before 2018. In fact, another district court here in California in the Kay versus Hartford case, ruled exactly the opposite. It's based on the preamble to the new regulations, which basically says these regulations requirements, including the sharing requirement of peer review reports before a final denial. They only apply to claims filed before April 1st 2018. And when these changes in the regulations took effect, it was hailed in the preamble to the regulations that this was a major new requirement. So the McConnell court simply got it wrong, the point being there was no obligation to share this Dr Honig's report with Dr Rohr before a final decision on denial.
Speaker 3:All of this goes to a supposed conflict of interest which the Supreme Court in the Glenn case said. Conflict of interest doesn't come into play. It reaches the vanishing point when the administrator has taken active steps to reduce any potential bias. Sun Life did that here. It went to third-party companies to select qualified physicians to review this claim. That third party selected Dr Potts, selected Dr Honig. Sun Life also had a person that was completely uninvolved in the initial claim determination handled the claim on appeal. A completely new set of eyes took a look at it.
Speaker 3:When steps like these have been taken to reduce any potential for bias, conflict of interest such as supposedly not sharing reports, which wasn't even required under the regulations they don't tip the scales. And in fact this very court in the Waukenan case Waukenan 531, f3, 575, said conflict of interest factors alleged bias. They may tip the scales but only if the other factors are not closely balanced. Here those factors were not closely biased. There were two neurologists' opinions who unanimously said disability isn't supported. The family practitioner's opinion was demonstrably unreliable. Under these circumstances, sun Life had no alternative but to stop paying the claim. All that's needed is a reasonable basis to affirm the district court and I would submit the judgment should be affirmed. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1:Thank you for your argument, Mr Brady. Do you need one minute to respond to anything that opposing counsel has said?
Speaker 4:Apparently, I'm not capable of doing anything in one minute, your Honor, but I'll just a couple of comments.
Speaker 1:We'll keep you to it.
Speaker 4:Thanks. At page 64 of the appendix the requirement was after benefits are initially awarded, the benefits continue unless the claimant does not provide proof that you continue to be totally or partially disabled, as requested by Sunlight. That's the test. Otherwise how would he know whether he was meeting the burden or not? Dr Potts never addressed the fundamental question here what are the essential duties of anesthesiology and can they be performed? He had some broad language about impairment, but when you read his report and focus on page 2396, his conclusion it's really all about the tremor vanishing. That's the only reason it made sense. Even if Margaret Frank's decision to terminate benefits based upon that misreading of the note was reasonable Once the tremors came back and once Sunlight's doctor said he has tremors and you need to evaluate him, it's just unreasonable at that stage to move forward with the termination. It's just unreasonable. He simply should have. Thank you, mr Brady.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we appreciate the argument from both counsel. It's been helpful and we'll take the matter under advisement.
Speaker 2:The proceeding has been a production of Ben Glass Law, a Fairfax, Virginia-based personal injury and long-term disability law firm. For a free evaluation of your claim, visit us at benglasslawcom or call us at 703-591-9829.