We do not handle social security disability claims
Over $250 Million Recovered for Our Clients

Our disabled client had been receiving benefits from her disability insurance company and expecting them to continue, as her disability had not changed.  She was awarded Social Security disability benefits from the federal government, which generally sets a higher bar for awarding benefits.

When the disability insurance company learned of the Social Security award, it terminated her claim and began proceedings to sue her for overpayment.

Most disability insurance policies require claimants to have their Social Security benefits paid to the disability insurance company rather than going to the claimant. This usually occurs somewhat automatically, but in this case, Social Security benefits were sent directly to the claimant.

She contacted us after receiving a demand for $55,000, frantic about the aggressive and threatening calls coming from a collections agency and not knowing what to do.

She didn’t have the funds to repay to the insurer.  Her situation had left her with no choice but to use the money from Social Security and she didn’t have the wherewithal to pay the money – especially after her disability benefits were terminated.

We told her that in this case, she could be protected by the same law that put her and so many other claimants in a bad position – ERISA. This is the federal law used to govern employee benefits and adopted by disability insurance companies to maintain an iron grip on disability claims disputes.

ERISA allows the insurer to recover on equitable remedies only – which did NOT include the ability to sue for a general judgment, as might occur in a typical dispute. Instead, the insurer would only be able to secure equitable remedies, such as recoupment (recovery from its own funds) or an offset against future benefits.

Our position was that this dissipated money prevented a claim against our client, based on a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Montanile v. Bd. of Trs. of the Nat’l Elevator Indus. Ben. Plan, 136 S. Ct. 651 (2016).

The Court determined that the “other appropriate equitable relief” to which an insurer might be entitled would not permit the recovery of a legal remedy for once identifiable funds which have dissipated. However, as noted by the Supreme Court in Montanile, seeking to attach general assets was not permissible – as that would constitute a legal and NOT equitable claim.  Instead, there must be identifiable funds to pursue.

We convinced the insurer on the basis of this case and the numerous cases which have followed and further defined this issue favorably for claimants.  We prepared an affidavit to support our position. Equally important, we made it clear to our adversaries that our client did not have such identifiable funds and further money chases, no matter how aggressive, were not going to yield any results.

When Social Security grants benefits in a large lump sum, often the insurer is entitled to such money—but not always. If this is your situation, contact our firm to discuss how we might be able to assist you.

Justin C Frankel

Written By Justin Frankel

Disability Insurance Lawyer

Justin C. Frankel is committed to fighting for the rights of clients when their long term disability insurance claims have been denied, delayed or terminated.

Client Testimonials

Rating stars 5.0 Average on Martindale & AVVO
  • We know how important our work is to the people we represent, and we’re pleased to share this recent note from a client. Dear Justin and Christina, I wanted to take a moment to express my sincere g…
  • Our 60-year-old client worked for the world’s largest out-of-home advertising company as a Senior Buyer and outdoor furniture supplier, doing everything necessary to manage a contract for twenty ye…
  • Successful ERISA Appeal of Cigna Denial for High-Ranking Aviation Executive from Florida A 61-year old woman with a prestigious role at a leading aviation company never imagined she would stop work…
  • ERISA Case Headed to Trial in Federal Court – Barber v. Sun Life & Health A Federal Judge in Connecticut has scheduled a trial with live witnesses in an ERISA case, to be decided under the arbi…
  • F&N Resolves a Four Year Delay in UNUM Lump Sum Settlement Matter We were contacted by a 56 year-old man from Maryland who had been trying to negotiate a lump sum settlement of his private disa…
  • Our client, a successful New York dentist, was on claim for a number of years with Trustmark Insurance, due to severe orthopedic issues, which did not permit him to safely and effectively practice …
  • “OK, now that I have had a chance to calmly review the documents, I just wanted to thank you for all of your help. I am certain that if I would have tried to do this myself, I would not have had th…
  • The Law Office of Justin Frankel Navigates Complex Issues, From Claim Preparation to Lifetime Management, for Chiropractor A New York chiropractor in his mid-50s was concerned about complex issues …