A former investment advisor from Illinois recently filed an Unum lawsuit, alleging the insurance company ignored relevant medical evidence when denying his claim for long term disability coverage.

The Unum lawsuit alleges the medical evidence clearly showed that due to his disability he was not able to work in the high stress and demands of his previous job, yet Unum still determined he was able to return to work.

Plaintiff Steven F. filed the Unum lawsuit alleging the disability provider used bad faith insurance tactics to cut off his benefits.

According to the Unum lawsuit, the disability provider had allegedly used the opinion of unqualified professionals to create a biased evaluation of Steven’s claim to come to the incorrect conclusion that he was able to work.

According to the Unum lawsuit, Steven had signed up with a Business Executive Disability Income Policy on July 1, 1996. This insurance policy is designed for executives, professionals, and self-employed individuals. and it was supposed to provide disability coverage if a medical condition had ever prevented Steven from working.

Overview of Unum Lawsuit

As an investment advisor and options trader, Steven had been previously fully employed in a fast paced and high demand environment that created a lot of stress. He claims this job became impossible for Steven in 2014 when he was diagnosed with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, which is an abnormal thickening of the heart.

Steven says he underwent emergency heart surgery in May 2014. He now alleges this is a permanent condition that he will have to contend with for the rest of his life. Due to the severity of this cardiovascular condition, Steven’s cardiologist allegedly advised him to avoid stressful situations in June 2014 and stated he should not return to his job.

According to the Unum lawsuit, the disability provider had initially approved him for long term coverage with the company’s own reviewing doctors agreeing with Steven’s doctors. Steven says he received treatment throughout 2014 and 2015, with his cardiologists continually stating he needed to avoid stressful situations.

With Steven’s condition not improving, he applied and was approved for Social Security disability benefits in September 2016, the lawsuit states. However, Unum had reportedly terminated Steven’s benefits abruptly in August 2017 even though he could not return to work.

Steven says he promptly filed an appeal to Unum on Dec. 11, 2017, which included relevant medical evidence and testimony from his previous and current cardiologists regarding the severity of his cardiovascular condition. Unum allegedly denied the appeal on Jan. 15, 2018, which exhausted the last of Steven’s administrative options.

According to the Unum lawsuit, the company had allegedly spoken with a receptionist at the claimant’s cardiologist’s office, who was not able to identify any restrictions or limitations on Steven’s condition.

Unum then allegedly assigned Steven’s file to a physician in internal medicine instead of cardiology, with the defendant physician stating Steven was able to work because he was able to go on daily walks and exercise.

Unum also allegedly claimed that the stress tests he had done in the past merely indicated that he could handle a high-stress environment and he could return to work.

Steven says he is currently unable to work and has been continuously incurring medical bills for his cardiovascular condition. Steven’s Unum lawsuit is seeking damages for all missing disability benefit payments, along with any other relevant damages.

This Unum Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-08387, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Law Division.

Do YOU have a legal claim? Fill out the form on this page now for a free, immediate, and confidential case evaluation. The bad faith insurance attorneys who work with Top Class Actions will contact you if you qualify to let you know if an individual lawsuit or Unum class action lawsuit is best for you. [In general, Unum bad faith lawsuits are filed individually by each plaintiff and are not class actions.] Hurry — statutes of limitations may apply.

Learn More