A lawsuit alleging violation of the Employment Retirement Income Act of 1974 (ERISA) was filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California on Sept. 12, 2017.

This ERISA lawsuit is brought by plaintiff Pamela F., a resident of the State of California and Orange County. She was an employee of Kern and Wooley LLP for the time relevant to her rights in question.

The defendant in this case is Unum Life Insurance Company, a business whose headquarters is in the State of Maine, but has offices and transacts business in California.

What is an ERISA lawsuit?

According to the Department of Labor’s website, ERISA set standards when it was passed in 1974 for health and pension plans voluntarily set up in private industry to protect employees enrolled in the plans.

Among the key requirements of ERISA are that plan administrators must provide detailed plan information to participants, managers of fund assets must carry out financial duties, and plan officials must create a method for plan enrollees to address grievances and proceed with an appeals process.

Under the act, enrollees are also allowed to sue with an ERISA lawsuit once all remedies have been exhausted under the grievances and appeals process.

Pamela F. and her ERISA lawsuit

Pamela F., plaintiff in this ERISA lawsuit, says she was enrolled in an employee health and benefit plan set up by her employer, Kern and Wooley, LLP that included long-term disability insurance benefits.

According to the narrative of the case, Unum Life Insurance Company is the insurer and claims administrator and assigned no. 949189 to her policy.

The plaintiff says she suffered a disability and filed a claim against her policy with Unum. This claim was denied on or about Sept. 23, 2016. Pamela F. appealed the decision six months later on March 31, 2017 according to the grievances and appeals process set up by Unum.

The denial was affirmed a second time on Aug. 24, 2017. This left the plaintiff no recourse but to file this ERISA lawsuit to recover her benefits.

According to the legal documentation of the case, the defendant’s response was ill-timed and didn’t provide any kind of beneficial explanation pursuant to the plaintiff’s policy documents as to why her claim was denied twice. She was not given any hints as to how she could perfect her claim to make it more acceptable. It was also stated in the case that there was improper investigation or review of her claim.

Pamela F. is asking in her ERISA lawsuit for the re-establishment of her long-term disability plan benefits, and for current and future enforcement of her rights under this plan. She asks for continued payments for as long as she remains disabled according to the terms of the policy.

She hopes for pre-judgement and post-judgement interest to be returned to her as well as all attorney fees and court costs associated with this litigation.

The Unum ERISA Lawsuit is Case No. 8:17-cv-01576-CJC-JDE in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.