A news release issued this morning by Washington law firm Phillips & Cohen LLP claiming victory in a trial against Unum regarding Social Security Claims is misleading and filled with inaccuracies. The jury actually sided with Unum on the majority of claims. The two claims that were decided in favor of the plaintiff resulted in a total award of less than $3,000.
“This is a blatant attempt by Phillips & Cohen to try to influence public opinion in a situation where they were unable to claim victory in a court of law,†said Chris Collins, senior vice president and general counsel for Unum US. “What makes this even more ridiculous is that Phillips & Cohen, while claiming to be lead counsel, was rarely in court, never asked a single question and never called a single witness. Phillips & Cohen was already chastised by the judge at the beginning of this case for issuing an improper news release, so their credibility is at question.â€
The case for the plaintiff was actually tried by the now-defunct law firm Heller Ehrman after the presiding trial judge chastised Phillips & Cohen for an earlier improper press release concerning the same case.
Commenting on the facts of the case, Collins said, “We are pleased that the jury sided with Unum on the majority of the claims, which we believe substantially supports our position that working Americans who pay Social Security premiums have a right to have a disability claim reviewed by the Social Security Administration. This verdict goes a long way in protecting those rights. It also substantially discredits the plaintiff’s assertion that simply requesting someone to ask the Social Security Administration to assess their claim is fraudulent behavior.â€
It is also important to note that after reviewing the case, the government refused to prosecute it on their own behalf. The so-called whistleblower in this matter, Patrick Loughren, is a plaintiff’s lawyer from Pennsylvania who has never had any association with the company. Further, even after representatives of the Social Security Administration became aware of the case, they never once requested Unum to change a single aspect of the company’s claim practices.
“We’re pleased too that, prior to submitting the case to the jury, the judge ruled in favor of Unum on a separate claim, saying that under no set of facts could the court determine that the company acted improperly,†noted Collins.
As part of the trial, Unum produced 1,600 claim files that the plaintiffs then narrowed down to 101 claims that they said should not have been submitted to the Social Security Administration. This number was later reduced to 61 as it was revealed that many of these claims were actually awarded Social Security disability benefits, and in other instances there was no proof that an application was ever made to the government.
To put these numbers in perspective, Unum processed nearly 400,000 disability claims and paid more than $4 billion in disability benefits in 2007.
“Of the two remaining claims decided in favor of the plaintiff, we continue to believe they have no merit and we think we will ultimately prevail upon appeal,†Collins added. “After five days of deliberating, the jurors wrote to the court stating that the issues were complex and difficult. If such issues can be resolved in hindsight in a manner that penalizes a company like Unum, then many Americans who are entitled to Social Security disability will never ask the Social Security Administration to determine whether they are entitled to those benefits. We remain confident that when this litigation eventually ends, the work begun by the jurors today in rejecting the majority of claims will be completed by the courts in favor of Unum on all claims.â€
As a practical matter, the jurors rejected the claim that there was any systemic problem with the way Unum adjudicates its claims. In substance, what plaintiff’s lawyers characterized as a “multi-million dollar case†has been reduced to a piece of litigation involving thousands of dollars.
Also notable is the absence of any evidence that Unum’s practices are materially different from the disability industry as a whole.
___________
Source: Unum