Wagner Logo

Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook 




The Wagner Law Group

The Wagner Law Group is a nationally recognized practice in the areas of ERISA and employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor and human resources and investment management.


Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be amongst the nation's premier ERISA and employee benefits law firms. The firm has seven offices across the country, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities worldwide. The Wagner Law Group's 32 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and five paralegals combine many years of experience in their fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Seven of the attorneys are AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and six are Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, an invitation-only organization of nationally recognized employee benefits lawyers.  Seven of the firm's attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2017, which highlights outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process.




Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group


  Integrity | Excellence



Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110


Washington, D.C.

Tel: (202) 969-2800


Fax: (202) 969-2568

 800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 810

Washington, D.C. 20006



Tel: (847) 990-9034

Fax: (847) 557-1312

190 South LaSalle Street

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60603



Palm Beach Gardens 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418



Tel: (813) 603-2959

Fax: (813) 603-2961

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 2140
Tampa, FL  33602 


San Francisco

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104


St. Louis

Tel: (314) 236-0065

Fax: (314) 236-5743
25 W. Moody Avenue
St. Louis, MO  63119 



Tel: (617) 532-8080

Fax: (617) 532-9090

55 Old Bedford Road

Lincoln, MA 01773







   Sixth Circuit Finds Disability Claimant Wasn't Deprived of a Full and

Fair Review


April 5, 2018




In Castor v. AT&T Umbrella Plan No. 3, the Sixth Circuit rejected an employee's claim that the administrator for her employer's disability plan had violated the DOL's claims procedure regulations by having her appeal reviewed by several doctors, including the same doctor who had originally denied her claim for benefits.


Law. The DOL has issued regulations that establish the requirements of a full and fair review of claims for benefits made by participants and beneficiaries under employee benefit plans covered by ERISA . One such requirement is that, on appeal, the plan administrator consult with "a health care professional who has appropriate training and experience in the field of medicine involved in the medical judgment" who is "neither an individual who was consulted in connection with the adverse benefit determination that is the subject of the appeal, nor the subordinate of any such individual." These requirements apply to plans providing disability benefits.


Facts. In early 2014, the employee, who had worked as a customer service representative for the employer for 15 years, began dealing with various medical conditions including colostrum difficile, pneumonia, H1N1, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, and anxiety and depression. In view of these ailments, the employee was originally approved for short-term disability benefits. However, these benefits were later terminated based on the opinions of her cardiologist and the plan administrator's cardiologist that she was no longer physically disabled.


The employee appealed the adverse benefit determination; in response, the plan administrator asked two new doctors to review the appeal. During the internal appeals process, the plan administrator also asked its cardiologist who had originally denied the claim to review the updated case file to see whether his prior opinion had changed.  


Upon reviewing the case file, all of the plan's doctors confirmed the validity of the adverse benefit determination, and the plan administrator upheld its decision to deny the claim for benefits. The employee responded by suing the employer in federal court, claiming that the plan administrator had violated the DOL's claims procedure regulations prohibition on consulting the same doctor during the claim and appeal process.


Sixth Circuit. In reviewing the case, the Sixth Circuit determined that the administrator's actions did not violate the DOL's claims procedure regulation because it had engaged two new doctors to review the employee's claims of disability. The Sixth Circuit noted that the DOL claims procedure regulations "neither affirmatively preclude an administrator from seeking additional reviews, nor preclude an administrator from asking the original doctor whether his original opinion had changed in light of new medical evidence." Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision to dismiss the employee's claim on the basis that the administrator's decision to have the original doctor review the employee's appeal materials did not deprive the employee of a fail and full review of the adverse benefit determination.


Employer Takeaway. The DOL's new regulations governing disability claims procedures for ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, which became effective April 1, 2018, do not change the requirement that different doctors must be used at different stages of a benefit claim.




This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.


This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.