Verdicts & Summaries

From favorable verdicts in a variety of ERISA disability claims and insurance bad faith cases to successful appeals in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the skilled disability insurance claim attorneys at Roboostoff & Kalkin have helped many clients throughout California fight for justice and the disability benefits they rightly deserve.

• Bosley v. MetLife (PDF)
• Prichard v. MetLife (PDF)
• Galvin v. Provident Life Insurance Company (PDF)
• Blankenship v. Liberty Life - Trial Court Decision
• Blankenship v. Liberty Life - Court of Appeals Opinion (PDF)
• Burke v. Pitney Bowes (PDF)
• McElroy v. Lockheed Martin - United States District Court Decision (PDF)
• Ondersma v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, et al. (PDF)
• Thivierge v. Hartford Life

In June 2007, a nurse employed by Kaiser Hospital developed chronic fatigue syndrome and filed a claim for long term disability benefits with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. MetLife paid the claim and he was eventually able to return to work.

When the employee's symptoms worsened several years later, a second claim was made and paid by MetLife. Eventually he was, again, able to return to work, albeit at a less physically demanding position.

When his chronic fatigue symptoms worsened for a third time, MetLife denied the claim alleging there was no evidence of "restrictions and limitations" which would prevent our client from preforming his "sedentary job" as an advice nurse.

In January of 2016, we filed a lawsuit against MetLife in the United States District Court in San Francisco for its refusal to pay benefits. This ultimately resulted in the court awarding our client his long term disability benefits.

In June 2003, a bank operations manager for Citibank, filed a claim for long term disability benefits under Citibank's disability plan because she had developed debilitating headaches after brain surgery and was unable to perform the essential functions of her occupation as a bank operations manager. The plan was administered and funded by MetLife Insurance Company. MetLife denied her claim alleging she was not entitled to receive benefits under the plan. The employee retained our firm to represent her against MetLife. In February 2005, we filed a lawsuit against MetLife in the United States District Court for its refusal to pay our clients benefits under the plan. In November 2005, shortly before the case was to go to trial, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement with MetLife on behalf of our client.

Rose Ellen, age 63, had been a computer programmer for 36 years. In 1986, when Rose Ellen was 45, she purchased a disability policy from Monarch Insurance Company because she wanted to have financial protection if she ever became disabled and could not work. In 2003, Rose Ellen filed a LTD disability claim with Monarch because she could no longer work due to myofascial pain syndrome, degenerative disc disease, and bulging discs in her neck. After paying on the claim for a few months, Monarch refused to pay any further benefits claiming Rose Ellen was not disabled. She retained our firm to represent her against Monarch. In September 2004, we filed a lawsuit against Monarch in the United States District Court for its bad faith refusal to pay Rose Ellen benefits under the policy. In August 2005, shortly before the case was to go to trial, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement with Monarch on behalf of Rose Ellen.

A software engineer for Visa filed a LTD disability claim under Visa's disability plan which was administered and funded by MetLife Insurance Company. He had developed cancer which required several surgeries. During surgery he went into a coma. As a result of the coma he developed diminished vision in both eyes which made it impossible for him to continue doing his work as a software engineer. Although MetLife initially approved our client's claim, it later denied it claiming that our client was no longer disabled. Our client retained our firm to represent him against MetLife. Prior to filing a lawsuit, we appealed MetLife's decision denying our client's claim and were able to convince MetLife to pay our client benefits under the plan.

In February 1999, a medical technician of 32 years filed a long term disability claim under her employer's disability plan because she was unable to do her job due to severe carpal tunnel syndrome. The plan was administered and funded by Life Insurance Company of North America ("LINA"). After LINA denied her claim for benefits under the plan, she hired our firm to represent her. In July 2000, we filed a lawsuit against LINA in the United States District Court for its refusal to pay our client benefits under the plan. In February 2002, shortly before the case was to go to trial, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement with LINA on behalf of our client.

In July 1997, an equipment materials manager for the California Department of Transportation, filed a long term disability claim under her employer's disability plan because she had developed disabling symptoms as a result of chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. The plan was administered and funded by MetLife Insurance Company. After MetLife denied her claim for benefits under the plan, she hired our firm to represent her against MetLife. In April 2000, we filed a lawsuit against MetLife in the United States District Court for its refusal to pay our client's benefits under the plan. In September 2001, shortly before the case was to go to trial, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement with MetLife on behalf of our client.

Harold, age 55, had worked for Lockheed Martin Corporation since 1971. In 2001, Harold filed for early retirement under the Lockheed Pension Plan. A dispute developed between Harold and Lockheed regarding the correct amount of monthly pension benefits Harold was entitled to receive under the Plan. Harold claimed that he was entitled to receive $2,725.00 each month, while Lockheed claimed that he was only entitled to receive $2,035.00 each month. When the Plan refused to pay Harold the correct amount, he retained us to represent him. In July 2004, we filed a lawsuit against Lockheed in the United States District Court claiming that Lockheed was paying Harold less than he was entitled to receive under the Plan. In November 2005, the Federal trial judge agreed with our position and decreed that Harold was entitled to receive monthly pension benefits in the amount of $2,725.00.

In October 2004, a San Francisco school teacher since 1967, filed a short term disability claim with Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada because he had developed chronic disabling migraines. Sun Life administered and funded the disability plan under which the school teacher was covered. Sun Life denied his claim alleging he was not disabled. He retained our firm to represent him against Sun Life. Prior to filing a lawsuit, we appealed Sun Life's decision denying his claim and were able to convince Sun Life to pay our client's benefits under the plan.

If you are facing legal issues with an ERISA or private disability insurance claim, contact the California long term disability insurance attorneys at Roboostoff & Kalkin online, or call our San Francisco office at 877-374-7270, to schedule a free initial consultation.

The information you obtain at this site is strictly for education and not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. However, we welcome this opportunity to discuss legal representation with you.Case summaries and testimonials on this website does not constitute a guarantee.