At Bartolic Law, we know how to approach chronic fatigue cases. Chronic fatigue cases involve a high number of what insurers call subjectively reported symptoms. We have helped clients get chronic fatigue cases paid, and they almost always turn on the ability to create as much corroborating evidence as possible, and in ways law firms from afar cannot do.
In one case, we accompanied the client to an Independent Medical Examination and documented the client falling asleep in the waiting area by photo and video. We then did a follow-up video interview the day after the examination to show–not just tell–how the activity made the client even more fatigued. The so-called “national” firms simply cannot do this by merely gathering your medical records and sending forms to doctors to complete.
There are several challenges in pursuing disability claims for chronic fatigue syndrome. Unlike some medical conditions which cause long-term disabilities, chronic fatigue syndrome does not have a definitive diagnostic test. This means the evidence and records you present to support your claim will be crucial.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), three primary symptoms must all be present for a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. First, fatigue is accompanied by a greatly reduced ability to perform regular activities which lasts for at least six months. Symptoms worsen after physical or mental activity that, before the illness, would have been normal. Finally, an individual may have sleep issues, including sleep that does not feel restful. Additional symptoms and evidence are often necessary for a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Even with a proper diagnosis, long-term disability claims for chronic fatigue syndrome are often still denied.
Ferrin v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 336 F. Supp. 3d 910 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2018) (holding insurance policy’s grant of discretionary authority is void under Texas law due to certificate being issued after effective date of regulation, and policy renewing after effective date, and holding Plaintiff was disabled from Any Reasonable Occupation where treating doctors certify she can sit at the occasional level, and insurer’s consultants opine Plaintiff can sit frequently, as weighing all evidence together would make capacity likely at low end of frequent range at best).
Sadowski v. Tuckpointers Local 52 Health & Welfare Trust, 281 F. Supp. 3d 710 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2017) (holding plan was arbitrary and capricious in denying medical benefits for removal of spinal cord stimulator following a fall down the stairs and infection where plan argued the expenses were caused by the same injury as the car accident necessitating implantation of the stimulator years earlier)
Tassone v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2017) (awarding client long term disability benefits denied by United of Omaha despite insurer’s doctor opining there was no objective evidence of functional impairment)
Suson v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15-CV-10817, 2017 WL 3234809 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2017) (holding Liberty Mutual’s denial of client’s long term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious where Liberty Mutual disregarded client’s carpal tunnel syndrome and relied on a vocational opinion to which client never had an opportunity to address before litigation)
At Bartolic Law, we provide the caring support and trusted legal guidance you need during this difficult time. As experienced Chicago long-term disability lawyers, we have helped many hard-working people get the benefits to which they are entitled. We can help you, too. Get your free case evaluation. Just complete this questionnaire, and one of our representatives will contact you. You can also Book Online.