UNUM Defeated Again For Behaving Badly
AppId is over the quota
Here's another case in which we see insurance companies behaving badly. Patricia Galvin, a Tax Attorney from Northern California was rear ended by a speeder and suffered back injuries that would lead to chronic debilitating back pain. Every doctor seen by Ms. Galvin concluded that she could not work due to the pain.
The only doctor to say she could work was UNUM's own Dr. Stephen Jacobson who claimed that Ms. Galvin's pain was subjective and that there was no objective medical evidence that the pain was at the level she described. UNUM also claimed that the cause of Galvin's inability to work was not her injuries from the accident but from depression exacerbated by a hostile working environment (which was created by her inability to function after her injuries).
So UNUM is claiming that her inability to work is caused by her hostile working environment. Ignoring the fact that the hostile working environment was created by her attempts to remain working despite her disability. Another catch-22 crafted by the insurance company to deny a legitimate claim. This time the court agreed with the plaintiff but California is a generous state when it comes to dealing with insurance companies and it certainly isn't the case that a similar result could be expected in similar circumstances elsewhere.
Read more on the complete opinion and more on Galvin v. UNUM and ERISA cases here.
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]
Back to badly behaving defeated UNUM
The only doctor to say that they could work was Dr. Stephen Jacobson, who claimed that Mrs Galvin was subjective pain and that there was no objective medical evidence, which was pain at the level of, they described the UNUM. UNUM also claimed that the cause of Galvin but was not their injuries from the accident incapacity of depression, strengthened by a hostile work environment (which was created after their injuries by their inability to function).
So, UNUM claims that their inability to work is caused their hostile working environment. Keep despite the fact that this work hostile working environment of their attempts despite their disability was created. A more catch-22 by hand by the insurance company to deny a legitimate claim. This time is the Court with the plaintiff but voted in California is likely a more generous State, when it comes to dealing with insurance and it certainly not the case, a similar result could be in, that similar circumstances elsewhere.
Read more about the full statement and more on Galvin v. UNUM and ERISA cases here.
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]
Back to badly behaving defeated UNUM
Hier ist ein weiterer Fall, in dem wir sehen, Versicherungsgesellschaften, die sich schlecht benehmen. Patricia Galvin, wurde eine Steuer-Anwalt aus Nord-Kalifornien hinten durch ein Speeder endete und erlittenen Verletzungen zurück, die zu chronischer schwächende Rückenschmerzen führen würde. Jeder Arzt von Frau Galvin gesehen hat, dass sie aufgrund der Schmerz nicht funktionieren könnte.
Der einzige Arzt zu sagen, dass sie arbeiten könnten, war die UNUM Dr. Stephen Jacobson, der behauptete, dass Frau Galvin Schmerzen subjektiv war und gab es keine objektiven medizinische Beweise, die der Schmerz auf der Ebene war, die sie beschrieben. UNUM behauptete ferner, dass die Ursache des Galvin Arbeitsunfähigkeit nicht ihren Verletzungen aus dem Unfall aber von Depression war, verstärkt durch eine feindseligen Arbeitsumgebung (die nach ihren Verletzungen durch ihre Unfähigkeit, Funktion erstellt wurde).
Also behauptet UNUM, dass ihre Unfähigkeit zu arbeiten ihrer feindlichen Arbeitsumfeld verursacht wird. Ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass das feindlichen Arbeitsumfeld von ihre Versuche arbeiten trotz ihrer Behinderung bleiben erstellt wurde. Eine weitere Catch-22 in Handarbeit durch die Versicherungsgesellschaft, einen legitimen Anspruch zu leugnen. Dieses Mal ist der Gerichtshof mit der Kläger aber California stimmte dürfte ein großzügiger Zustand, wenn es um Umgang mit Versicherungen und es ist sicherlich nicht der Fall, den ein ähnliches Ergebnis sein könnte in, dass ähnliche Umstände anderswo.
Lesen Sie mehr über die vollständige Stellungnahme und mehr auf Galvin v. UNUM und ERISA Fällen hier.
Nachricht:
Benachrichtigen Sie mich über Follow-up-Kommentare per e-Mail.
Aus Sicherheitsgründen geben Sie den Grafik-Text in das Feld unten: [drücken Sie F5, wenn Sie den Text nicht lesen können]
