A new lawsuit has been filed against Unum Life Insurance Company of America by a woman who states she had an improperly denied disability benefits claim from the company.

Plaintiff JaLyn T. filed her lawsuit in Illinois federal court under the provisions of ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Jalyn is a 40-year-old associate attorney who was employed in her most recent position for more than three years.

As part of the employee benefits afforded to her JaLyn was provided with long-term disability coverage under a group policy from Unum.

According to JaLyn’s policy, the term “disability” is defined as follows: “You are limited from performing the material and substantial duties of your Regular Occupation due to your sickness or injury; and you have a 20% or more loss in your Indexed Monthly Earnings due to the same sickness or injury.”

JaLyn’s regular occupation as defined by Unum was “your specialty in the practice of law which you are routinely performing when your disability begins.”

In January 2006, JaLyn was diagnosed and began treatment for a complex seizure disorder with cognitive impairment. Following her diagnosis, her physicians did not release her to resume her normal work because her disabling medical conditions persisted.

Unum provided JaLyn with $8250 per month of disability benefits from January 2006 until the end of February 2015. Unum terminated the disability benefits on February 26, 2015.

Before Unum terminated JaLyn’s benefits, a vocational consultant, hired by Unum, was asked to complete an Occupational Report and did so in July 2014.

According to the denied disability benefits claim lawsuit, “The Occupational Report was completed without any occupational information regarding [JaLyn’s] work as an associate attorney. [The vocational consultant] did not review a job description or a curriculum vitae regarding [JaLyn]. In fact, nothing in Unum’s claim file contains such employment information.”

A review of JaLyn’s file took place shortly thereafter. The doctor who reviewed the file agreed with both the neuropsychological evaluation previously conducted and the clinical records provided by JaLyn’s treating neurologist. However, the lawsuit states that without even examining JaLyn or speaking to her physician, the reviewing doctor “concluded that [JaLyn’s} neurocognitive dysfunction did not rise to a disabling level of impairment.”

Before her benefits were terminated JaLyn underwent a neuropsychological evaluation with a psychologist hired by Unum. This psychologist was told that JaLyn had already undergone a neuropsychological examination three weeks prior, but the psychologist still proceeded to test her.

“A neuropsychological examination performed in such close proximity to a prior examination of the same type is contra indicated due to a ’practice effect’,” the Unum denied disability benefits claim lawsuit states.

In the psychologist’s report, he concluded that JaLyn’s neurocognitive disorder was not supported by the test results. Not long after, JaLyn’s disability benefits were denied and she filed an appeal.

As part of her appeal, JaLyn included the results of a Vocational Evaluation that concluded JaLyn would be unlikely to maintain employment in the job she held. She also included information in her that the psychologist hired by Unum provided had provided an expert opinion and a federal lawsuit, and his opinion was discredited and was described as “methodologically unsound.”

JaLyn states that rather than taking her concerns about the psychologist’s credibility into account, Unum sent her file back to the psychologist for his opinion. The psychologist said there wasn’t any reason for him to change his report and stood by his original opinion. After several more reviews, JaLyn had officially exhausted all of her administrative remedies and filed a lawsuit against Unum.

The plaintiff has brought forth a single count against Unum, alleging it failed to provide her benefits under ERISA. She is seeking reinstatement of her long-term disability payments, along with interest, due to her from February 26, 2015, and seeking to have these benefits continue as long as she meets the qualifications. She is also seeking attorneys’ fees and costs in her denied disability benefits claim lawsuit against Unum.

The Unum Denied Disability Benefits Claim Lawsuit is Case No. 1:17-cv-00751, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.