No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court denied plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits under ERISA, finding that plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving she was disabled within the terms of the insurance policy. The court credited the defendant insurer's medical experts over plaintiff's treating physicians.
Koehnke v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
What Happened
Koehnke filed a lawsuit against Unum Life Insurance Company seeking long-term disability benefits. She claimed she was entitled to these benefits under her employer's disability insurance plan, but the company denied her request.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in favor of Unum Life Insurance Company. The judge found that Koehnke did not provide sufficient proof that she was disabled according to the specific terms outlined in her insurance policy. The court gave more weight to the medical opinions provided by the insurance company's doctors than to the opinions of Koehnke's own treating physicians. As a result, Koehnke received no damages or benefits.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that workers seeking disability benefits face a challenging burden. Even if your own doctors believe you're disabled, an insurance company's medical experts' opinions can outweigh theirs. If you're denied disability benefits, the court may side with the insurer if you can't meet the strict definition of disability in your specific policy. Workers should carefully review their disability insurance policies and gather thorough medical documentation when pursuing such claims.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.