After more than 13 years, a former supervisor for a pharmaceutical company is taking Unum to court over his denied disability claim.

Plaintiff Gary H. says he used to work for Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation as the Section Head of Quality Control at Roxane Laboratories. As a Boehringer employee, he says he was covered under the Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation Disability Plan, administered by Unum.

Gary says he became disabled in March 2002 due to end-stage liver disease, which itself led to multiple complications that prevented him from continuing to perform the duties of his occupation.

Following a September 2002 liver transplant, Gary says his medical records document “prolonged post-op recovery due to debilitation and sepsis and rejection.” He developed peripheral neuropathy secondary to his liver disease, leading to a nerve palsy and foot drop in his right leg.

On top of the neuropathy related to his liver disease, Gary says, he also suffers from cubital tunnel syndrome in both arms and radiculopathy in his cervical spine and lumbar spine. He says these conditions hinder his ability to perform most occupations that require use of his hands, such as writing, keyboarding, or laboratory work.

Unum granted his claim for disability benefits and started paying effective September 2002. The company continued to pay his claim for twelve years. As recently as May 2012, an Unum vocational consultant concluded that Gary continued to be “disabled” under the plan’s definition.

But in October 2014, Gary says, Unum cut off payment. Unum claimed that Gary had become able to perform his prior occupation and was no longer entitled to disability benefits.

Appealing Gary’s Denied Disability Claim

Gary disputes his denied disability claim, citing medical evidence that he says continues to show he is disabled within the plan’s definition. He cites a neuropsychological evaluation from just before the denial that says his upper extremity motor performance possibly “remains impaired by his diagnostic history which includes neuropathy.”

The same neuropsychological evaluation revealed weakened cognitive functioning, he says. Although the reviewer questioned whether the cognitive loss is “significant,” Gary argues that the loss is enough to prevent him from performing the technical and scientific work in his field, making him disabled according to the plan’s definition because of his cognitive loss alone.

Gary says he appealed his denied disability claim on time. He submitted additional medical evidence from his treating physicians – neurology records, gastroenterology records, and imaging studies. An Unum vocational consultant concluded that while Gary could be employable in certain sedentary or light-duty occupations, they would not compare to the more sophisticated type of work he was trained for. Gary says that this conclusion by Unum’s own consultant supports a finding of continuing disability.

After review, Unum upheld Gary’s denied disability claim. Gary says the company merely cherry-picked evidence from the record that supported the denial while ignoring evidence from Gary’s own treating physicians that showed how disabled he truly remains.

He is now asking the court to award him retroactive unpaid benefits effective October 2014, plus interest. He also seeks an order determining his entitlement to future benefits and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

Gary’s Unum lawsuit is Case No. 3:16-CV-00433 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

.