MetLife Reprimanded For "Independent" Medical Reviewer Link
AppId is over the quota
A recent case out of the USDC of Sourthern New York was won by plaintiff Tracy Solomon. Ms. Solomon was granted LTD benefits from her plan with MetLife.
One of the highlights of the case was the relationship of the medical reviewer with MetLife. Dr. Amy Hopkins was hired my MetLife to be an independent medical reviewer and to determine if Ms. Solomon was disabled. The decision to terminate benefits was based largely on Dr. Hopkins' report that Solomon was able to work. Solomon contested the validity of Hopkins as an independent medical reviewer due to her close ties with MetLife. Upon further review it was found that Dr. Hopkins earned well over half of her income from doing independent medical work for MetLife. The judge determined that this was a relationship that went beyond what is acceptable for a reviewer to be regarded as "independent."
The inherent bias of having to determine disability payments from your employer casts doubt on the validity of Dr. Hopkins' opinion. In the cutthroat world of insurance, companies favor those doctors who give them the best chance at legitimate denial. With such a vested interest in maintaining a relationship with MetLife, her largest beneficiary, the possibility of bias and the solid medical evidence that contradicts Dr. Hopkins' opinion is enough to determine that her report is flawed. This judge set it right, let's hope others follow suit and insurance companies learn to use legitimately independent doctors. Here's the entire Solomon v. MetLife opinion .
Message:
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
For security purposes, please enter the graphic text in the box below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]
MetLife reprimanded for "Independent" medical reviewer link
One of the highlights of the case was the relationship of medical reviewer with MetLife. Dr. Amy Hopkins stopped my MetLife to an independent medical examiner be and was to determine whether Ms. Solomon disabled. The decision benefits end report that Solomon was able to work based largely on Dr. Hopkins. Solomon contested the validity of the Hopkins as an independent medical reviewer due to their close links to MetLife. After further review revealed that Dr. Hopkins over half earned their income which, independent medical work for MetLife. The judge determined was, the a relationship that went, what is acceptable for an editor as "independent"
The inherent bias of the need to determine disability payments from your employer has doubts about the validity of the Dr. Hopkins opinion. The cutthroat world of insurance companies prefer these doctors, the you the best chance of legitimate denial of. With such an interest relating to MetLife, their largest beneficiary, which opinion is contrary to possibility of bias and solid medical evidence, Dr. Hopkins is enough to determine that their report is incorrect. This judge put it right, we hope that others follow and learn you use insurance companies legally independent doctors. Here, the entire Solomon v. MetLife is opinion.
Message:
Notify me of follow up comments via e-Mail.
Off for security reasons, enter the image text in the box below: [press F5 when you can't read the text]
