Latest / FLG Disability Insights / Hartford Any-Occupation Review: Deadlines, Job Demands, and the Appeal Record
Transcript
- When a disability policy shifts from your occupation to any occupation, is it enough for an insurer to list a few sedentary jobs? A recent Hartford decision shows why the answer depends on the policy, the appeal record, and what those jobs actually demand. Welcome to FLG Disability Insights. I’m Nick Feden of Feden Law Group. Krystal Farley was a nurse who experienced serious lung disease after hospitalization and partial lung removal. Hartford terminated her ERISA long-term disability benefits under a policy that defined any occupation by her education, training, or experience and an earnings threshold. She challenged that termination. The appeal timeline became crucial. Farley faxed her appeal to the correct number on August thirtieth, twenty twenty-three. Hartford did not decide it within the applicable forty-five-day period. It later acknowledged receipt and attributed the delay to processing errors. Applying the disability-claims regulation’s strict-adherence requirement, the district court found that the narrow exception for a minimal violation did not apply. The court reviewed entitlement independently, without deferring to Hartford. It treated the administrative record as closed on October fourteenth, excluding Hartford’s later December decision and analysis. That does not mean every missed deadline produces the same result. The court noted that the Eighth Circuit had not interpreted the newer regulations. Still, the case shows why claimants should preserve fax confirmations, delivery evidence, and insurer acknowledgments. Those records can establish exactly when an appeal arrived. The vocational evidence mattered too. Hartford’s report identified four occupations involving minimum training, but did not explain the extent of that training or address Farley’s skill deficits. This policy did not require retraining. The court also found that Hartford’s sedentary-work analysis did not reconcile the proposed jobs’ standing and walking demands with its own reviewing doctor’s restrictions. The point is the fit between the person, the restrictions, the policy, and the actual occupational demands. The decision does not assign the same standing and walking requirements to every sedentary job. The court granted Farley summary judgment, vacated the denial, and sent the claim back for a renewed full and fair review. It did not order Hartford to pay benefits immediately. For an any-occupation appeal, focus on the exact policy language, sustained functional limits, the real duties and training each proposed job requires, and a clean record of every submission. Visit FedenLawGroup dot com and try FLG Case Analyst Beta. Get a full report from our attorney-trained, cutting-edge AI model, then connect with our firm about your next step. This podcast provides general information, not legal advice, and listening does not create an attorney-client relationship. I’m Nick Feden. Thanks for listening to FLG Disability Insights.