Video Library

Guardian Disability Appeal Won for Legal Secretary

The case involves a legal secretary in Georgia who worked for a law firm for over five years. She underwent an outpatient ablation procedure for heart issues, which went catastrophically wrong, resulting in a stroke. The stroke left her hospitalized for 30 days, including two weeks in the ICU, and required extensive rehabilitation to relearn basic functions like walking and feeding herself. She now relies on a walker, experiences vision issues, left-sided weakness, hand issues, pain, and fatigue, and requires ongoing family care. Her employer-provided group disability policy with Guardian, one of the largest group disability insurers, initially approved her claim, paying benefits for three years under the policy’s own-occupation provision, with a modest monthly benefit of less than $500 due to offsets from her Social Security disability approval.

At the three-year mark, when the policy’s definition of disability shifted to “any gainful occupation,” Guardian denied her claim, asserting she was “stable” based on medical records and could return to work. The denial relied on two external consultant reviews and an in-house vocational analysis, which suggested she could perform sedentary jobs like secretary or receptionist. These reviews highlighted her “stable” condition but ignored critical impairments, such as her inability to type due to hand issues, reliance on a walker, and other stroke-related limitations. The attorneys criticized the consultants as biased, selectively focusing on positive aspects of the medical records while disregarding evidence of ongoing disability, describing the denial as egregious.

Attorney Alexander Palamara took on the case, motivated by the injustice of the denial despite the low benefit amount, and built a robust appeal to reinstate benefits. Key steps included:

• Obtaining updated medical records and Guardian’s claim file to analyze the basis of the denial.
• Arranging a Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) by an independent physical therapist, which concluded the client was unemployable and incapable of sedentary work due to her inability to type, sit for extended periods, lift, or function without a walker.
• Securing an updated attending physician statement from the client’s doctor, who endorsed the FCE results and reiterated that the client could not perform any occupation due to fatigue, left-sided weakness, vision issues, and other impairments.
• Hiring a vocational expert to review Guardian’s vocational analysis, the consultant reports, FCE results, medical records, and physician statements. The expert refuted Guardian’s claim, stating it was “ridiculous” to suggest the client could work as a secretary or receptionist given her typing limitations and other physical constraints.
• Crafting an appeal that systematically highlighted errors in Guardian’s consultant reviews and vocational analysis, pointing to the overwhelming evidence of disability, including the FCE, physician support, and Social Security’s finding of disability.

The appeal was so compelling, supported by extensive new evidence, that Palamara described it as “writing itself.” Guardian reversed the denial, reinstating the client’s benefits, acknowledging the lack of a reasonable basis for their initial decision. The attorneys noted that Guardian’s increasing denial rates make them one of the most challenging insurers to deal with, yet this case demonstrates that well-supported appeals can succeed. Palamara continues to manage the claim, advising the client on medical record updates, claimant statements, and attending physician statements to prevent future denials, as Guardian may reevaluate periodically despite the low benefit amount. The case underscores that no claimant is immune to scrutiny, regardless of benefit size, and highlights the importance of objective evidence like FCEs and vocational analyses in overcoming biased consultant reviews in ERISA-governed claims.