In Anderson v. Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA), the Arizona federal court upheld LINA’s denial of short term and long term disability benefits to the plaintiff even though it acknowledged the medical evidence supported her claim to be suffering from numerous medical symptoms. The fact that she suffered from these symptoms did not qualify her for disability benefits when, according to the court, “The record demonstrates that Anderson’s symptoms, at their worst, caused her no greater than mild impairment or slightly below average cognitive performance. In light of that level of impairment, Anderson fails to carry her burden of establishing her inability to continue performing her duties as an account manager.”

Underlying Facts

On May 1, 2012, Nannette Anderson began working as an account manager for HUB International Limited (HUB). Her job was described as sedentary, also requiring her to have good vision for doing close-up work and the “ability to adjust and focus.” Although she was in good health at the time of her employment, about seven months later, she began suffering from headaches. Her symptoms got worse, and she claimed she had trouble with her speech, memory and cognitive skills.

Anderson was examined by many physicians in different specialties and even spent some time at the Mayo Clinic. She underwent numerous diagnostic tests, but the cause of her multiple complaints was never identified. Her last day of work was March 26, 2013, and on April 1, 2013, she filed a claim for disability benefits.

Despite many medical reports, and peer review of her medical records by consulting physicians retained by LINA, only one doctor said Anderson was disabled, and he did not say in what way she was disabled nor how her symptoms interfered with her ability to do her job, but offered a simple conclusion that she was unable to work.

Court Analysis

The court analyzed each one of Anderson’s symptoms individually and found that there were no restrictions placed on her for any particular symptom. It then considered “the aggregate effect of Anderson’s issues.” Reviewing all of the medical opinions, only Anderson’s family physician said that she could not work, and he provided no support for that conclusion.

Numerous other physicians examined her and, as the court noted, not one of them “definitively placed any functional restrictions on Anderson…Furthermore, some doctors opted to prescribe everyday tips and remedies to overcome Anderson’s cognitive hurdles as opposed to setting strict restrictions.” Based on the record, the court found there was insufficient evidence for it to conclude that Anderson was unable to perform the material duties of her job. “Although there may have been days where Anderson would have been unable to perform her duties, the record simply does not support finding Anderson consistently incapable” of performing the duties of her sedentary job.

Although not handled by our office, this case may provide guidance to claimants as to what kind of information reviewing physicians look for in the medical records to substantiate a disability and the requirement that there needs to be a description of how that disability affects the ability of claimants to perform the specific duties of their job. If you need assistance with a similar matter, or any other aspect of your disability claim, please contact one of our lawyers for a free consultation.