Skip to main content

Russell v. Catholic Healthcare Partners Employee Long Term Disability Plan

6th CircuitJune 8, 2015No. 13-4084
Defendant WinUnum
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Moore, Kethledge, Tarnow
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision upholding the plan administrator's termination of the plaintiff's long-term disability benefits, finding that the administrator's decision to terminate benefits after 24 months was not arbitrary and capricious under ERISA.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Patricia Russell worked for Catholic Healthcare Partners and received long-term disability benefits through her employer's insurance plan, administered by Unum. After receiving benefits for 24 months, Unum terminated her payments, claiming she no longer qualified under the plan's terms. Russell disagreed and sued, arguing that Unum wrongfully cut off her benefits and violated her employment contract. **What the Court Decided** The federal appeals court ruled in favor of Unum and the disability plan. The court found that Unum's decision to stop Russell's benefits after 24 months was reasonable and followed proper procedures. Under federal law (ERISA), insurance companies have considerable discretion in making benefit decisions, and courts can only overturn them if they're "arbitrary and capricious" - meaning completely unreasonable. The court determined Unum's decision didn't meet that high standard. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights how difficult it can be to challenge disability benefit terminations. Workers should carefully review their disability insurance policies to understand time limits and requirements. When benefits are denied or terminated, the legal standard heavily favors insurance companies, making it crucial to document medical conditions thoroughly and consider getting independent medical opinions before benefits end.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 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.