Bartolic Law has worked with clients insured by Prudential at all stages. In one case, Prudential denied short-term disability benefits to a client who suffered from bilateral cervical radiculopathy, and the client’s work in account management required frequent computer use. Despite multiple surgeries, the client remained unable to function at work. Working closely with our client’s doctors to detail the symptoms and impact of medications, we obtained full approval, and the client continues to receive payments. Another time, Prudential denied a claim by a Network Engineer with Parkinson’s disease. By getting more detailed explanations of the rigidity and tremors, and demonstration of the formation of pill rolling tremors, we demonstrated why the client would not perform mouse/keyboard work, resulting in Prudential agreeing our client was disabled. Bartolic Law has also represented many nurses affiliated with the Philippine Nurses Association of Illinois insured by Prudential. Many times, we demonstrated the physical demands of their clinical work being incompatible with the restrictions and limitations, and the earnings of other sedentary nursing positions not meeting the earnings requirement of “any occupation” disability. We have also successfully represented numerous City of Chicago employees insured by Prudential. These clients’ jobs often involve standing and walking, and chronic back pain limits their ability to be on their feet.
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)