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 29 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and four 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

  

Boston 

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

 

Chicago

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

   

Tampa

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 

 

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com

 

 

 

 

  Pregnancy is Not a Pre-existing Condition for Disability Insurance

September 15, 2017

 

 

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Bradshaw v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., has rejected a disability insurer's decision to deny disability benefits to an insured who suffered a stroke days after giving birth on the basis that her pregnancy was a pre-existing condition.

Law. While the Affordable Care Act has eliminated health insurers' exclusion of insureds who have pre-existing conditions, such exclusions remain valid and enforceable under disability insurance policies.  

Background. In Bradshaw, the plaintiff became disabled after suffering a stroke caused by complications related to her pregnancy. Because the plaintiff was pregnant when the disability policy went into effect, the insurer rejected her claim for benefits on the basis of the policy's provisions that excluded coverage for disabling impairments "contributed to" by a "pre-existing condition", which the policy defined to include pregnancy.

The plaintiff sued the insurer in federal district court after it denied her claim on the basis that her pregnancy contributed to the stroke and qualified as a pre-existing condition.  The district court granted judgment in favor of the defendant-insurer, and the plaintiff appealed the adverse determination to the Eleventh Circuit.

Eleventh Circuit. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the insurer had incorrectly and unreasonably applied the pre-existing-condition rule exclusion because she had not received treatment for a stroke during the relevant period.

In response, the insurer asserted that it had reasonably applied the policy's exclusion for a pre-existing condition because: (i) the plaintiff had not been employed for a full year, (ii) she was pregnant during the "look-back period," and (iii) her pregnancy "contributed to" the stroke.

In reviewing the matter, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the policy permitted the insurer to deny benefits for a total disability based on terms that were not clearly defined in the policy (i.e., "caused by, contributed to by, or resulting from" a pre-existing condition). Accordingly, the court determined that the insurer's interpretation of the pre-existing-condition clause and, in particular, the phrase "contributed to," was "unreasonable" and "at odds with the goals of ERISA."

The Eleventh Circuit next explained that the exclusion of coverage for a loss contributed to by a pre-existing condition, strictly construed, would preclude coverage if any pre-existing health conditions in some way might have contributed to the loss. The court concluded that the policy would essentially require a claimant to be in perfect health at the time of obtaining the policy before the policy would benefit the claimant during the succeeding 12-month period, which would be next to impossible for anyone.

The Eleventh Circuit then ruled that the language "contributed to by . . .a pre-existing condition" excluded coverage for only those losses "substantially caused by, substantially contributed to by, or substantially resulting from a pre-existing condition." In the court's view, this interpretation of the policy language advanced ERISA's "clear purpose to provide greater coverage to beneficiaries."

Finally, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the insurer's "but for" argument (i.e., that but for the insured's pregnancy, she wouldnot have developed high blood pressure; but for her high blood pressure, she would not have developed preeclampsia; but for her preeclampsia, she would not have suffered a stroke; and, finally, but for her stroke, she would not have become totally disabled) on the basis that it required too many links. As a result, the court concluded that the "only condition" that the insured had during the look-back period was a healthy pregnancy, and her pregnancy could not be said to have substantially "contributed to" her total disability. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter back to the district court for further review in accordance with its determination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.