Latest / FLG Disability Insights / Why a Later Diagnosis May Not Prove Past Work Limitations
Transcript
- Can a diagnosis made later prove that someone was unable to work when disability benefits ended months earlier? Welcome to FLG Disability Insights. I’m Nick Feden of Feden Law Group. Syed versus Unum shows why the answer depends on the connection between the diagnosis, the disputed period, and the actual job. The claimant was a corporate lawyer who stopped working in May of twenty twenty-three amid depression and anxiety. Unum approved long-term disability benefits, then terminated them effective April twelfth, twenty twenty-four. Records before the termination described improvement and stable, manageable symptoms, with largely normal mental-status findings. Treating providers supported disability, but the court concluded that their explanations did not adequately establish functional limits or reconcile contrary records from the same period. During the administrative appeal, the claimant submitted later opinions addressing POTS, dysautonomia, and chronic fatigue syndrome, along with letters from treating providers and accounts from the claimant, a friend, and her sister. Unum upheld the termination. A California federal court then reviewed the administrative record de novo. That means it independently decided whether the claimant had proved disability by a preponderance of the evidence. The court ruled for Unum, upheld the termination, awarded no benefits, and ordered no remand. The policy focused on the substantial and material acts the claimant routinely performed for her employer, with reasonable continuity. The court considered her actual duties at Cooley rather than substituting a generic, less demanding job. The court recognized an important principle: a later diagnosis may explain an earlier disability and cannot be dismissed only because it is retrospective. But the diagnosis alone did not prove that the policy’s disability definition was met in April. The court found that the later specialist did not persuasively reconcile tilt-test results at the upper end of normal, and the record did not show that the specialist had considered the contemporaneous psychiatric notes. Personal accounts weakened arguments based on social gatherings, but they did not overcome the court’s concerns about the medical functional evidence. The practical takeaway is to make the bridge explicit. Ask treating clinicians to identify the relevant dates, the actual occupational duties that could not be sustained, the clinical findings supporting those limits, and their frequency and duration. If earlier notes describe improvement, explain whether that improvement restored the ability to work with reasonable continuity or whether substantial limits remained. This was one federal district court applying one policy to one record. It does not mean that POTS, chronic fatigue, mental-health conditions, or attendance at social events determine work capacity in every case. Visit FedenLawGroup dot com and try FLG Case Analyst Beta. Get a full report generated by an attorney-trained, cutting-edge AI model, then connect with our firm about your next step. This podcast provides general information only and is not legal advice. I’m Nick Feden. Thanks for listening to FLG Disability Insights.