Video Library

Hartford Reverses Disability Denial

The case involves a registered nurse working in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), who was injured in a car accident, hitting her head and developing post-concussion syndrome. This condition led to neurocognitive issues, major depression, and anxiety, severely impacting her ability to perform the high-stakes duties of a NICU nurse, which involve caring for critically ill newborns and making split-second decisions, often during 12-hour shifts. She filed a disability claim with Hartford, which administered both her short-term and long-term disability policies. Hartford approved her short-term disability benefits, paid by her employer, but denied her long-term disability claim during the transition review after a six-month elimination period.

The denial was based on a review by Hartford’s neuropsychologist, who evaluated the client’s prior neuropsychological testing, conducted within six months of the accident by her neurologist. The testing confirmed neurocognitive issues, but Hartford’s doctor dismissed it, citing a lack of validity testing and asserting that the severity of her condition did not justify continued disability, suggesting she should have recovered by then. The attorneys criticized Hartford for evaluating the claim in a vacuum, focusing solely on whether the client had restrictions or limitations without considering the specific demands of her NICU role. Hartford’s review process failed to contextualize the client’s cognitive impairments against her job’s requirements, effectively glossing over the critical nature of her duties.

Attorney Stephen Jessup developed a robust appeal strategy to counter the denial. Key steps included:

• Engaging an independent neuropsychologist to review the raw data from the initial neuropsychological testing, conduct additional validity indexing, and compare findings with both the treating doctor’s report and Hartford’s reviewer’s opinion. This review clarified the interplay between cognitive deficits and psychological factors, such as possible PTSD-like symptoms from the accident.
• Obtaining an EEG of the brain, which provided objective evidence supporting the neuropsychological findings and confirming cognitive impairments.
• Securing a supportive opinion from the client’s treating neurologist, reinforcing the medical evidence.
• Crafting arguments emphasizing the mismatch between Hartford’s assessment and the client’s job demands, highlighting that even minor cognitive issues could be catastrophic in a NICU setting, where precision and quick decision-making are paramount.

The appeal effectively challenged Hartford’s oversimplified evaluation, which ignored the vocational context of the client’s role. By presenting comprehensive medical evidence, including the EEG, independent neuropsychological analysis, and strong doctor support, Jessup demonstrated the client’s ongoing disability. Hartford reversed the denial, reinstating long-term disability benefits, well before the appeal process’s 45-day deadline, indicating the strength of the submitted evidence.

The attorneys underscored the broader issue of insurance companies, like Hartford, evaluating claims without considering the specific occupational duties, a practice that unfairly minimizes the impact of impairments. This case highlights the importance of objective medical evidence, such as EEGs and neuropsychological testing, and the need to tie medical findings to the claimant’s job requirements in ERISA-governed appeals. The victory establishes a baseline for future monitoring, with plans to repeat neuropsychological testing to track the client’s condition, which may persist due to the unpredictable nature of post-concussion syndrome, as seen in cases like professional athletes with long-term brain injuries.