Milwaukee Employment Law Attorneys Blog

Can employers return women to different jobs after FMLA leaves?

2013-05-24T16:53:00Z

When family or medical needs require a Wisconsin resident to take time off work, there are state and federal laws that come into play. Under the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act, private and public employers who have at least 50 employees must provide unpaid, job-protected medical or family leaves to workers who have put in at least 1,000 hours in the previous 52 weeks. Under the Wisconsin FMLA, workers can take up to six weeks of leave annually for the birth or adoption of a child, and two weeks for serious health conditions.

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act offers more leave, but it may apply to fewer employers and employees in Wisconsin. Under the federal FMLA, 12 weeks of leave must be offered in a 12-month period for childbirth or adoption, a health condition, or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. One of the most important aspects of both of these laws is that they require leaves that are job-protected. But, what exactly does that mean?

]]> When an employee returns from an FMLA leave, he or she must be restored to his or her original position. If for some reason the original job is not available, he or she must be placed into an equivalent role--this means that the pay, benefits and terms and conditions of employment must be equivalent to those that the worker had before going on leave.

In one recent case, a woman returned from an FMLA leave to find that she was transferred into a new job. The transfer meant a pay cut, more travel and a physical move from an office to a cubicle.

She sued her employer for the failure to properly reinstate her following her FMLA leave. The employer apparently argued that she received everything she was entitled to simply by having a job to return to.

The court ruled in favor of the woman, finding that her original job and the job offered to her after her maternity leave were not equivalent, and thus in violation of the federal FMLA.

Source: Business Management Daily, "Reinstate employee to equivalent job after FMLA leave," May 23, 2013

Disability Insurance Awareness Month is here

2013-05-22T16:53:00Z

May is Disability Insurance Awareness Month, which means it is a good time for Wisconsin residents to make sure that they understand their disability options. Disability insurance is an important lifeline for those who become disabled before retirement, and this happens much more frequently than most people realize. The Social Security Administration estimates that one-quarter of today's 20-year-olds will become disabled prior to retirement.

Wisconsin residents may have access to a group disability plan, an individual disability plan, a supplemental disability plan and/or Social Security disability insurance.

]]>

Social Security Disability Insurance: SSDI provides disability benefits to those who have worked long enough to pay enough Social Security taxes into the system. For those who have not met this threshold prior to becoming disabled, Supplemental Security Income provides benefits dependant on financial need.

Group Disability Plans: Group plans are typically offered through employers. While this coverage can be important, the plans generally do not offer full paycheck replacement and they may have a limit for the timeframe in which benefits will be paid.

Individual Disability Plans: Those who are not happy with their employer's group plan, or whose employers do not offer disability insurance at all, may shop around for an individual plan. While these may include a lot more coverage options, they tend to be more expensive.

Supplemental Disability Plans: These plans are meant to fill in the gap if a person is worried that an employer plan or Social Security may not be sufficient.

It is important for Wisconsin residents to understand their disability policies, and before submitting a claim it is wise to obtain a complete copy of one's policy. While disability insurance is a very important type of insurance coverage, unfortunately many long-term disability insurers do not always honor claims. Long-term disability claims are often wrongfully denied, and when this happens claimants should seek legal counsel.

In many cases, it is possible to fight the insurer in order to attain the benefits that one is rightfully entitled to--be it LTD benefits or SSDI. It is often helpful to have legal representation in order to successfully appeal a denial or termination of benefits.

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Employees need to understand their insurance coverage," Adrienne Packer, May 19, 2013

EEOC files genetic information discrimination lawsuit

2013-05-17T16:30:03Z

We write quite a bit about the Americans with Disabilities Act in this Milwaukee Employment Law Blog. Many employers and employees in Wisconsin are aware that this federal law bars employers from discriminating against workers or job applicants on the basis of a real or perceived disability. Another law that is closely tied to the ADA is the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. This act was just passed into law in 2009, and many employers do not understand what this requires of them.

GINA prohibits employers from requesting genetic information from their employees or from applicants during the hiring process--typically, their family medical histories. Earlier this week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed its second ever lawsuit under GINA.

]]> The lawsuit accuses a nursing and rehabilitation center in New York of asking for genetic information during its hiring process. Furthermore, the lawsuit also states that the company violated both the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

According to the EEOC, this company required pre-employment medical exams for job applicants, and these exams were repeated on an annual basis for employees. During these exams, family medical histories were requested. The company then discriminated against several pregnant women and several employees with real or perceived disabilities, violating the ADA and the Civil Rights Act.

As noted above, this is only the second time the EEOC has pursued a lawsuit under GINA. The first case was settled just last week for $50,000.

Under GINA, it is very clearly illegal for employers to request or require family medical histories from employees and applicants. It is important to note that even when these requests are made through a contracted medical examiner--and not the employer--it is illegal and employers can be held respinsble.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Files Class Genetic Information Discrimination Suit Against Corning Rehab Center," May, 16, 2013

Federal Judges hot under the collar over SSDI decisions

2013-05-15T21:35:20Z

It seems everyday there is another report about a Social Security claimant who fought for decades to receive benefits. This type of story should be rare, however the frequency with which it occurs is staggering. Claimants could fight for years after filing their claims, appealing denials of benefits, sometimes all the way to federal court. In many cases, even Federal Court isn't the final stage if the Judge remands - or sends the case back - to the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") who initially heard the case for consideration of new information and a new hearing. This process can be especially frustrating when the ALJ's decision is based on insufficient or erroneous conclusions, or simple boilerplate language that offers no real analysis.

Federal judges in Wisconsin have taken notice of a problem with ALJ's denying Social Security benefits without sufficient reasoning, rationale or evidence and are sending a message to the Social Security Administration, Administrative Law Judges and the U.S. Attorneys who defend these cases in federal court: Get your act together!

In the early part of 2013, two decisions were issued from the District Courts of Wisconsin reprimanding the Social Security Administration and ALJ's for issuing poor decisions and the U.S. Attorneys office for issuing poor decisions and then defending them in federal court rather than voluntarily remanding them.

In Bunnell v. Astrue, Judge Crabb chastised the SSA ALJ for using boilerplate language as part of the reasoning to deny a claim for SSDI based on a credibility determination. This boilerplate language provides none of the analysis required by law and prevents reasonable review of the Judge's rationale. For this reason, claimants must appeal an adverse decision.

When federal cases are ultimately filed, the local U. S. Attorney's office represents the government. The US Attorney's office has the authority to voluntarily remand cases rather than defend them. Judge Stadtmueller in Fresmuth v. Astrue harshly criticized the US Attorney's office for not exercising this authority in the particular case but also in general. Judge Stadtmueller cited the significant cost to taxpayers not only because it costs time and resources for the court and attorneys, but also because Plaintiffs in these cases can recover attorney fees.

We can only hope that the SSA has heard these Wisconsin judges and judges across the county, and will instruct ALJ's to provide better written, thoroughly reasoned cases rather than unnecessarily deny benefits which then have to be appealed.

Medical company settles whistle-blower lawsuit

2013-05-14T22:19:05Z

Wisconsin residents should be able to trust that their doctors are making decisions about their health care based on knowledge and expertise, not bribes or profits. This is why it is illegal for medical companies to provide hospitals or doctors with kickbacks for using or prescribing their products--doctors should make decisions based on the patient's needs, not undue influences.

Yesterday, a medical device company agreed to settle a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by an employee who accused the company of paying kickbacks to doctors and hospitals that purchased its radiation treatments.

]]> According to the lawsuit, the medical company paid doctors and hospitals to prescribe its brachytherapy seeds--a medical device that is implanted into the prostate in order to send radiation to cancer cells.

A former contracts administration officer for the company complained to her supervisors about the illegal kickback scheme after she learned of it. The company did not stop this practice after she complained, and she ultimately filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against her employer in 2006.

The U.S. government joined the lawsuit, and the company has now agreed to pay $48.2 million to resolve the claims. The whistle-blower will receive $10.1 million of that settlement.

When whistle-blowers file lawsuits, they are generally entitled to share in any recovery that the government obtains.

This case is an example of how important whistle-blowers are, as they often bring to light dangerous and harmful wrongdoing. It is very risky to blow the whistle on one's employer; whistle-blowers are often illegally retaliated against by their employers, and there is no guarantee the government will join a whistle-blower's lawsuit. Those who are interested in blowing the whistle on their employers may benefit from seeking legal counsel beforehand to ensure that they are prepared for the important journey ahead.

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Bard settles Ga. whistleblower suit for $48 million," Bill Rankin, May 13, 2013

Are Wisconsin employers going to do away with overtime pay?

2013-05-10T23:08:02Z

In 1938, the federal government enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act in order to protect workers in Wisconsin and throughout the union from being exploited by their employers. One important provision of this law limits the work week to 40 hours. Workers must be compensated for any hours they work over 40 with time-and-a-half their regular rate of pay. By the mid-1980s, workers in the public sector were given the option of selecting overtime pay or paid time off--meaning they could either take extra wages for their extra hours or bank one and a half vacation hours for every hour over 40 that they work.

Now, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted to give workers in the private sector that same employment right. Proponents of the bill say it is a great family-friendly measure that will help workers earn time off to attend parent-teacher conferences, childrens' sporting events or keep up with other family tasks. The bill, however, is very controversial.

]]> It might seem like a no-brainer that it would be great for employees to have the right to select what they need more: time or money. But, it is actually much more complicated than that.

Critics say that this measure is actually more pro-employer than pro-worker. This is because it gives employers a way to cut overtime costs. They say employers might pressure workers to pick comp time instead of overtime wages, and stop offering overtime hours to those who want wages.

The program works in the public sector, they argue, because these workers are often unionized and have greater safeguards.

The bill does bar employers from coercing workers to accept comp time instead of wages, but critics still worry that employers might take advantage of workers if this bill becomes law.

The bill would allow workers to accrue up to 160 hours of comp time, and although it could be used for any reason employers would have discretion over whether to grant specific requests for time off.

For now, it does not appear that the bill will go very far as support is split along party lines. President Obama has said he would veto it.

Are Wisconsin residents interested in being able to earn paid time off instead of overtime pay?

Source: Associated Press, "Overtime pay vs. time off: GOP wants a choice, but Democrats say plan would hurt workers," Sam Hananel, May 6, 2013

Chris Kluwe's release spurs employment law questions

2013-05-08T23:08:02Z

Wisconsin football fans know that the Minnesota Vikings released punter Chris Kluwe earlier this week although he had a year left on his contract. While the Vikings' management have claimed that Kluwe was cut so that the team could add a more competitive punter to its roster, a number of people--even the state's governor--have questioned whether the fact that Kluwe has become an outspoken gay rights advocate had anything to do with the decision.

While professional sports franchises do not exactly follow the same employment law standards as other employers--for example, they frequently fire players for younger, cheaper models--this controversy has brought to light some interesting legal issues.

]]> Kluwe's gay rights work took place off of the field, and the question of whether employers should have any control or reaction to their employees' activities outside of the workplace has long been a topic of debate here in Wisconsin.

However, in Wisconsin, like in most states, the employee-employer relationship is at-will. This means that employers can fire employees for pretty much any reason as long as it does not violate any existing statutes. For example, an employer cannot legally fire a worker because of his or her religion, but it might be able to fire a worker for spreading a very negative impression of the employer--on a blog, for example. In certain cases, however, that type of speech is protected by law.

In both Wisconsin and Minnesota it is illegal for employers to discriminate against workers based on their political activity.

And even though employers can fire employees for a number of unfair but legal reasons related to nonwork behavior, it is generally not wise for them to do so. This is because it can generate a lot of negative publicity and ill-will toward a company. Earlier this year, for example, an Applebee's restaurant fired a worker who posted a picture of a guest check on a social media site. Applebee's said it did this because the posting violated the customer's privacy. The high-profile firing, however, brought a significant public demand for the company to rehire the server.

In conclusion, this case is a reminder that employers may actually legally fire workers for their off-duty behavior in some cases. However, in many cases, the off-duty behavior in question is actually protected by a federal or state statute, which would make the firing illegal. Workers who have been fired, demoted or otherwise disciplined for something that does not seem work-related might benefit from talking to an employment law attorney about their rights.

Source: The Star Tribune, "Schafer: Off-hours activities can burn employees," May 5, 2013

Landmark verdict sends message about disability discrimination

2013-05-03T22:25:02Z

Wisconsin residents may have heard that a landmark Americans with Disabilities Act case came to a close this week. The case involved a Texas turkey processor that ran a labor camp for mentally disabled men in Iowa for decades until the Des Moines Register brought the camp to the attention of state officials in 2009.

Earlier this week, a jury awarded each of 32 former employees of Henry's Turkey Service $7.5 million, ending this sad case that shined a light on the abuse and discrimination suffered by hundreds of men at the camp over the years.

]]> The employees were sent from Texas to live in a bunkhouse in rural Iowa while they worked at a turkey processing plant, which paid Henry's Turkey Service to supply them under the terms of a contract that began in the 1970s.

In 2009, state officials learned that the bunkhouse included a number of unsafe and unsanitary conditions--including rodent and bug infestations, fire hazards and a leaky roof. They also learned that many of the men who lived there had medical problems that needed immediate attention. In addition to the poor living circumstances, the men were reportedly physically and verbally abused by their supervisors at home and at work.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company when it learned of these major violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and basic civil rights. The total verdict, which amounts to about $240 million, is the largest ever obtained by the EEOC, and possibly the largest verdict related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In addition to the physical abuse and egregious discrimination, the men were paid only $65 a week--or 41 cents an hour. A judge previously ordered the company to pay the men more than $1.3 million in back wages.

The case involved only 32 former employees because federal law limited it to include only the years 2007 to 2009.

it is unclear how much of the $240 million the victims in this case will actually receive as the company is now defunct.

This case should be a reminder to employers and employees that workers cannot be treated unfairly on the basis of a disability or percieved disability. American workers--disabled and non-disabled--have civil rights that must be both respected and protected.

Source: Des Moines Register, "Jury: $240 million for Atalissa workers," May 1, 2013

Judges sue Social Security Administration over disability process

2013-05-01T22:25:02Z

Many Wisconsin residents can attest to the troubles that come with being overworked. Having too much on your plate at work can affect your personal life, your social life and your health--not to mention your performance on those actual work tasks. The latter is apparently a problem for Social Security disability administrative law judges, according to a lawsuit that was filed last week.

The administrative law judges who decide appeals of Social Security disability claim denials for the Social Security Administration say that quotas regarding their caseloads are way out of wack, and it is hindering their ability to accurately assess cases. The judges are reportedly required to decide as many as 700 appeals every year--or up to two daily--and they say that this makes it impossible to afford disability applicants due process. To put this into context, a single appeal may include about 500 pages of medical information and other documentation.

]]> The SSA implemented the quotas for its 1400 administrative law judges several years ago in an effort to motivate the judges to plow through an ever-increasing backlog of cases. While the wait time for an appeal hearing has decreased significantly since the quotas began, disability applicants are still waiting as long as two years for hearings. The pressure on judges to get the work done, according to some, is leading judges to make poor decisions regarding individual cases.

What may come of this lawsuit remains to be seen. The very fact that such a lawsuit has been filed is a reminder of the difficulties facing the SSA and individuals here in Wisconsin who are in need of Social Security disability benefits. When people apply for disability benefits, applications go to local SSA offices that deny most claims. When applicants then file appeals, the cases are routed to the administrative law judges, who apparently do not have enough time to properly consider them.

It is important for those who decide disability cases to be able to do so both efficiently and accurately. Unfortunately, as many Wisconsin residents are aware, the SSA is having problems with both of those goals. This is one reason why those who are pursuing disability benefits may wish to consider seeking legal guidance.

Source: Baltimore Sun, "Judges sue Social Security over 'quotas' on disability decisions," Yvonne Wenger, April 28, 2013

Government files lawsuit against Lance Armstrong

2013-04-26T14:53:05Z

Back in February in this Milwaukee Employment Law Blog, we wrote about the U.S. Justice Department joining in the whistle-blower lawsuit against Lance Armstrong. This week, the Justice Department made it official and filed a formal complaint against the disgraced champion cyclist. The lawsuit also targets the team owners.

As we have previously discussed, this case is continuing to demonstrate the way in which qui tam whistle-blower cases function. Qui tam is a provision under the federal False Claims Act. Under this provision, private citizens--or whistle-blowers--can file a lawsuit on behalf of the government accusing a person or organization that receives government funding of defrauding the government. The government then has the option to take up the lawsuit itself, and if it does so and is successful the whistle-blower is entitled to a portion of the recovered damages.

]]> This particular lawsuit was originally filed by Armstrong's former teammate Floyd Landis. He accused Armstrong and others of defrauding the government by using performance-enhancing drugs while being sponsored by the U.S. Postal Service, which banned drug use in the sponsorship contract.

The USPS reportedly spent $40 million to sponsor the team, giving Armstrong alone $17 million. The government has announced that it will seek triple damages, or more than $150 million.

Armstrong's attorney has argued that USPS did not suffer any real damage by sponsoring the team, and that in fact it benefited from it. Whether that is true, and what effect it may or may not have on the case remains to be seen.

The Justice Department's complaint specifically accuses Armstrong and others of being "unjustly enriched" by defrauding the USPS.

Source: Business Insider, "Lance Armstrong Sued For Becoming 'Unjustly Enriched' By US Postal Service," Agence France Presse, April 24, 2013

Whistle-blower faces retaliation after filing safety complaint

2013-04-24T16:52:09Z

One very important right of workers here in Wisconsin and throughout the U.S. is the right to voice workplace safety concerns without the fear of retaliation. Employees need to be able to express their concerns about workplace hazards and safety threats so that the employer, or authorities, can be aware of any issues that may endanger workers or patrons.

Unfortunately, employers do sometimes break the law and retaliate against workers who complain about safety issues by firing them or taking another adverse action. The U.S. Labor Department recently accused Chicago's commuter rail agency of doing just that, and has ordered it to provide overtime pay to the victim of the retaliation.

]]> The whistle-blower in this case is a 22-year-old signalman who filed a safety complaint in 2011 to voice concerns about signals not being properly tested due to time constraints. The man complained that there was not enough time to do the testing within his regular hours and he requested overtime hours to complete the work.

Instead of offering the overtime to the worker or finding another way to address this issue, Metra responded by reducing the man's overtime hours and ultimately eliminating his position, according to the Labor Department's Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

While Metra has not explained why it treated the worker this way, an OSHA investigation determined that the man's safety complaint was the reason behind his employer's decision to eliminate his position.

As we noted above, employers do not have any right to retaliate against workers who complain of safety issues. The Labor Department ordered Metra to provide the worker with $38,000 in overtime pay, and it appears that Metra has not yet responded to the order.

Source: Chicago Tribune, "OSHA: Metra owes employee in whistleblower case," April 23, 2013, Richard Wronksi

Victims of domestic violence may have FMLA rights

2013-04-18T18:29:09Z

Several months ago in this Wisconsin Employment Law Blog, we discussed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's message to employers who may employ victims of domestic violence. Although victims of domestic violence are not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws, the EEOC suggested that it may be illegal for employers to discriminate against victims under a number of overlapping laws. For example, not allowing a woman to leave work for a protective order proceeding might qualify as sex discrimination if male employees have been allowed to leave work for court dates.

A column that was recently published by CBSNews.com details additional employment laws that may protect victims of domestic violence. One of these is the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, under which victims of domestic violence may be able to take a job-protected leave should they need time off due to injuries or to leave an abuser.

]]> Under federal law, the FMLA applies to employers who have at least 50 employees in a single area. They must offer up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to employees who have worked for them for at least a year, having put in more than 1,250 hours in the previous year. Employees may take FMLA leaves if they have serious injuries, illnesses or mental trauma.

Residents of Wisconsin have additional leave rights under the Wisconsin FMLA.

Those who are leaving an abuser and have a restraining order in place may wish to disclose this to a manager or human resources department. Many workplaces might have domestic violence policies that provide additional protections, such as a close parking spot or a security escort.

Those who are leaving abusers may also receive safety strategies from a victims' rights advocate that include plans to arrive at work at a different time each day, or to telecommute from an undisclosed location. Many employers will make such accommodations, and in some cases they might be required to by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Victims of domestic violence should remain focused on their safety, and law enforcement and victims' advocates may help with this. When an employer gets in the way of this or treats victims of domestic violence unfairly, it may be beneficial to talk with an employment law attorney.

Source: CBS News, "What do you tell your boss when you're leaving your abuser?" April 8, 2013

Wal-Mart sued after firing victim of workplace sexual harassment

2013-04-16T20:57:17Z

Employment claims filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act here in Wisconsin often involve accusations of discrimination in hiring, advancement or other work-related activities. Discrimination against people with disabilities in the workplace is often subtle--such as the failure of an employer to provide a worker with accommodations that would aid in his or her abilities to do a job, for example. A lawsuit that was recently filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against a division of Wal-Mart involves allegations of very egregious ADA violations.

The EEOC has accused Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., which operates Wal-Mart stores in the eastern part of the country, of allowing a male employee to sexually harass a developmentally disabled female employee, and of firing the woman when she complained to management about the abuse.

]]> This alleged conduct is illegal under several laws, including the ADA, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and possibly criminal laws as well.

The harassment reportedly took place at a store in Akron, Ohio, where the victim was employed for more than a decade. From 2005 to 2011, the lawsuit states, she was subjected to sexual harassment and unwanted sexual touching from a male employee. When the victim complained to management about these horrible workplace activities, not only did store managers fail to put a stop to the harassment, but they fired the victim.

The lawsuit states that the harassment violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, while failing to provide reasonable accommodations to the female employee--including proper training and supervision, as well as information about anti-harassment policies--violated the ADA.

The lawsuit requests compensation for the woman's lost wages and benefits, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

It is important that Wisconsin residents are aware that not only are things like discrimination and harassment illegal, but it is also illegal for employers to retaliate against workers who complain about unlawful behavior in the workplace. Victims of such employment rights violations may benefit from legal counsel.

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Sues Wal-Mart for Sexual Harassment, Retaliation and Disability Discrimination," April 10, 2013

Equal Pay Day reminds Wisconsin workers of wage gap

2013-04-12T22:32:04Z

Women and minorities recognized Equal Pay Day in Milwaukee on Tuesday by holding a demonstration at the Equal Rights Division, according to a local news report. The group used the occasion to call for the strengthening of existing anti-discrimination employment laws, and State Rep. Chris Sinicki and Wisconsin State Senator Chris Larson spoke at the event.

Some Wisconsin residents may not be aware that Equal Pay Day is recognized annually nationwide. It is meant to call attention to the wage gap that exists between men and women who perform the same work. The date of Equal Pay Day moves around a bit each year, as it is meant to signify the day by which the average woman would have matched the average man's previous year's earnings. So, by April 9, 2013, women should have been able to catch up with what men earned in 2012. This is because women reportedly earn about 77 cents for each dollar that men earn.

]]> Equal Pay Day was of extra significance this year because 2013 marks the 50^th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 to end wage discrepancies among employees who performed work that required equal skill and effort, in similar working conditions. Since the law was passed, U.S. employers have come a long way in offering equal wages to men and women, however there is still much work to be done. A significant gap in pay still exists and it is even larger for Latina women and African American women, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which fielded more than 4,000 complaints of gender-based wage discrimination in 2012.

So, there is still work to be done. As President Barack Obama stated in his Proclamation for National Equal Pay Day: "...our journey will not be complete until our mothers, our wives, our sisters, and our daughters are treated equally in the workplace and always see an honest day's work rewarded with honest wages."

Source: Fox6Now.com, "Women, minorities speak out against pay gap," April 8, 2013

Source: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Chair Issues Statement on Equal Pay Day 2013," April 9, 2013

Our employment law firm in Milwaukee helps people stand up for their employment rights. This practice includes discrimination and wage claims, among other types of disputes. More information about fair wages is available on our Milwaukee Wage Claims page.

Reasons your disability insurance claim may be denied

2013-04-10T20:24:42Z

We often discuss wrongful long-term disability insurance claim denials in this blog. Many of our readers might wonder why it is that disability insurance companies deny claims so often. The answer to this is complex, as there are a number of reasons claims might be denied, but a recent Huffington Post column discusses a few of the issues.

One issue cited in the column is that disability insurance companies are not regulated in the same manner as health insurance companies. For example, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as health care reform, will not have an impact on disability insurance. Additionally, disability insurers may have different requirements than the Social Security Administration and even your employer when it comes to defining a disability.

]]> In general, disability insurers simply have many loopholes that they are able to use to deny claims in order to maximize profits. In many cases insurers may deny claims or cancel policies in the hopes that the claimant will not fight back. And, in many cases, disability claimants are unaware of their rights and they do no dispute denials.

This is unfortunate because it is often possible to successfully fight the denial of long-term disability insurance benefits. Consumers need to know that simply because they are told "no," the story does not need to end there. However, there are strict deadlines and protocol when it comes to appealing a denial and a mistake can result in lost benefits.

Those who have been denied disability benefits due to a lack of evidence, or for questionable reasons, may benefit from speaking to a disability lawyer about their rights and options.

Source: Huffington Post, Disability Insurance: A Blessing or a Burden?" Erin Havel, March 21, 2013

For more information about disability insurance denial and how to take legal action if your claim has been denied, please visit our Wisconsin law firm's website.