NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED. CHICAGO STRONG. LONG TERM DISABILITY FIRM
Bartolic Law handles Long Term Disability cases at all stages, from filing a claim to lawsuits under ERISA § 502(a). We are who the most discerning clients hire when an insurer denies their claim, and the one they wish they had when another firm loses their appeal and abandons the case. We are Innovative, Authentic, Compassionate, Transparent and Chicago strong. Bartolic Law is nationally renowned for our Innovative work:
You were supposed to be paid long-term disability benefits because you cannot work. You went through the claim and the appeal. But the insurer still will not pay your claim. The stress of the delay and income loss exacerbates your symptoms. Because of our Compassion, we understand, and do everything we can to avoid you being here. Our pre-litigation appeal process is the best opportunity to avoid this, but it still happens sometimes.
Not Everyone Came to Us First, But They Usually Wish They Had
Many of our lawsuits and victories are cases we inherited from other firms that abandoned the case, or that they rejected for being too challenging.
Our Core Values set us apart and are what give us an unmatched track record in long-term disability insurance litigation: zero losses. We are principled about obtaining the outcomes our clients most want. We respect firms that have dozens or hundreds of appellate court decisions, but the untold reality is those cases were lost in the district court, and the clients waited many years to be paid.
We are the strongest at assessing a case’s strengths and weaknesses, anticipating what a court will do, and tailoring our litigation strategy to what is likely to succeed. Courts appreciate our Authenticity and Transparency. Insurers and defense lawyers respect it. Clients love it.
SUCCESSES
Ferrin v. Aetna Life INS. CO.
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).