-
September 21, 2026
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. — An employee welfare benefit plan that offered voluntary benefits including long-term disability (LTD), life insurance and critical illness coverage is the focus of a putative class complaint filed in New York federal court, with plan participants accusing their employer of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by making choices that resulted in “excessive charges embedded in premiums, diminished Plan and participant assets, and the loss of value and loyalty owed by a fiduciary operating free of self-dealing.”
-
September 21, 2026
ROANOKE, Va. — Following a jury trial in a case that involved numerous disputes concerning a rescinded group disability income insurance policy, a Virginia federal judge entered judgment against a former emergency medicine physician who filed the suit, declaring the insurer “discharged from any liability to the plaintiff under the disability income policy.”
-
September 21, 2026
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Finding no abuse of discretion in a long-term disability (LTD) insurer’s decision to deny a claim under a preexisting conditions exclusion, a North Carolina federal judge entered judgment against a former pilot who had throat and breathing problems.
-
September 18, 2026
CLEVELAND — Granting judgment on the administrative record against a claimant who has epilepsy, an Ohio federal judge concluded that it was not arbitrary and capricious to deny his claims for benefits under a group long-term disability (LTD) policy and an individual disability income policy.
-
September 17, 2026
OAKLAND, Calif. — After upholding denial of the long-term disability (LTD) the claim of an account executive who argued that conditions including tinnitus and anxiety rendered him disabled, a California federal judge entered judgment against the claimant on Sept. 16; reviewing the denial de novo, the judge said in part that it rested on the claimant’s “failure to demonstrate that the diagnoses resulted in a disability that prevented him from working in his Own Occupation.”
-
September 17, 2026
PORTLAND, Ore. — On de novo review, an Oregon federal magistrate judge ruled that a claimant diagnosed with young-onset Parkinson’s disease (YOPD) is entitled to have her long-term disability (LTD) benefits reinstated under the plan’s “any gainful occupation” definition of disability because the evidence demonstrates that she “suffers from a chronic, degenerative condition that results in cognitive impairments and fatigue which prevent plaintiff from attending work on a reliable and consistent basis, and, when at work, concentrating on her duties.”
-
September 16, 2026
BOSTON — In a memorandum and order citing the prejudice a long-term disability (LTD) claimant suffered and the LTD plan administrator’s “lack of concern for its” statutory obligations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a Massachusetts federal judge decided that the claimant is entitled to a “modest” penalty of $5,000 because the administrator provided plan documents only 230 days after the first of the claimant’s many requests.
-
September 16, 2026
SALT LAKE CITY — On de novo review, a Utah federal judge ruled that a long-term disability (LTD) insurer must reconsider whether a claimant qualifies for benefits under an any-occupation definition of disability because it relied on an employability analysis report that was based on a medical case manager review that “missed all evidence of mental health treatment and care in the record.”
-
September 15, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — A claimant who unsuccessfully challenged termination of her long-term disability (LTD) benefits under an any-occupation definition of disability filed a Sept. 14 notice in Florida federal court that she is taking the case to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
-
September 14, 2026
CHICAGO — Affirming summary judgment in favor of a disability insurer, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the claimant’s breach of contract and bad faith claims fail because his individual policy unambiguously conditioned benefits on showing “that he could not make a reasonable living from any job for which he was qualified, not just his prior occupation as a dentist.”
-
September 09, 2026
DENVER — Reversing the denial of a claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits, a Colorado federal judge said that “none of the evidence” the insurer relied on compared the claimant’s “cognitive functioning to the actual requirements of his position as a software engineer, or his ability to perform those functions on a continuous work schedule” and therefore the decision “is not founded on substantial evidence” and must go back to the insurer “for further consideration.”
-
September 09, 2026
ATLANTA — Affirming summary judgment for an insurer that terminated a claimant’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said in an unpublished opinion that the insurer needed the documents to evaluate whether the claimant “satisfied the Test of Disability, so his refusal to provide them justified termination under the Plan.”
-
September 02, 2026
ST. LOUIS — Saying in part that there was no clear error in the lower court’s refusal to credit a treating physician’s attempt to “walk back” his opinions that the claimant was capable of sedentary work, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits under an “any gainful occupation” definition of disability.
-
August 31, 2026
NEW ORLEANS — Skirting “thorny choice-of-law issues” but expressing doubt that a plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act “can tell its insured that no state law applies to him,” the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued an unpublished opinion affirming denial of long-term disability (LTD) benefits on the grounds that the claimant “was not totally disabled” even under de novo review.
-
August 28, 2026
ATLANTA — Issuing an unpublished Aug. 27 opinion affirming a ruling against a pro se claimant whose long-term disability (LTD) benefits were terminated under an any-occupation definition of disability, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said it was reasonable for the insurer “to rely on the findings of four medical professionals, in conjunction with the independent medical examination and the two vocational assessments, to find that [she] no longer met the definition of disabled under the policy because she could perform sedentary jobs in her area.”
-
August 24, 2026
TAMPA, Fla. — Granting summary judgment on the administrative record for the insurer in a suit where a claimant challenged termination of her long-term disability (LTD) benefits under an any-occupation definition of disability, a Florida federal judge said in part that because a second occupation that she could perform had been identified, “even assuming that Defendant should not have relied on ampoule sealer, Plaintiff has not shown that the asserted obsolescence of that occupation undermines Defendant’s ultimate determination.”
-
August 24, 2026
CHICAGO — Initial briefing before the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has concluded in an appeal of a decision that upheld termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits under a “regular care of a physician” requirement, with the insurer arguing that the claimant is seeking “to prevent the district court’s enforcement of the Plan terms” and the claimant countering that the insurer “offers no authority holding it can disclaim its way out of regulations and plan requirements for its communications, because none exists.”
-
August 24, 2026
DETROIT — Denying a request for $22,050 in attorney fees and costs in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit over termination of long-term disability (LTD) benefits, a Michigan federal judge assessed the factors outlined in Sec'y of Dep't of Labor v. King and concluded “that an award of attorney fees would not be reasonable”; that decision applied to both what the judge said was the claimant’s untimely application for appellate fees and her timely application for fees on remand.
-
August 21, 2026
OAKLAND, Calif. — Saying in part that “the relevant position for the disability analysis under the ‘any occupation’ standard is an executive-level sales management position or a comparable position,” a California federal judge ruled that an insurer wrongly terminated long-term disability (LTD) benefits for a claimant she concluded was disabled due to “cognitive deficits caused by her asymmetric hearing loss.”
-
August 20, 2026
We asked attorneys who handle disability benefits cases to weigh in on why certain decisions handed down in the past year were significant.
-
August 19, 2026
MINNEAPOLIS — Declining to dismiss claims against two defendants accused of improperly denying a claim for short-term disability (STD) benefits, a Minnesota federal judge said in part that “it is unclear who the relevant decisionmaker was or on what basis the STD benefits were denied”; he also ruled plausible the allegations that one of those defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by not furnishing a third-party administrative services (TPA) agreement and the entirety of a “Wrap Document.”
-
August 19, 2026
CINCINNATI — Saying in an unpublished opinion that the lower court made an error but its ruling stands because the appellant “has not demonstrated irreparable harm, even when his arguments are viewed under the proper light,” the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motion for a preliminary injunction that would have prohibited termination of the appellant’s employment and interference with his disability and health insurance benefits.
-
August 18, 2026
SAN FRANCISCO — Pursuant to a joint stipulation in a long-term disability (LTD) benefits case in which he had resolved a choice-of-law dispute, a California federal judge dismissed the case with prejudice.
-
August 17, 2026
LOS ANGELES — Granting a motion for $227,348.40 in attorney fees and costs in a long-term disability (LTD) case in which the plaintiff was awarded $31,016.65, a California federal judge said in a minute in-chambers order that he “will not further reduce the recoverable fees based on Plaintiff’s partial success, especially given the intertwining nature of the successful and unsuccessful issues.”
-
August 14, 2026
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Denying a plaintiff’s motion for remand to the administrator of his long-term disability (LTD) plan for reconsideration, a South Carolina federal judge explained that the claim was denied due to the plaintiff being “out of work for too little time to qualify” for benefits and that he didn’t show “how additional medical records could have altered this analysis.”