In a very enlightened and forthright opinion, Judge Acker, from the northern district of Alabama, recognized several common insurance company disability claim tactics as unlawful, or in the context of ERISA, arbitrary and capricious. With a more critical eye of MetLife’s conflict of interest as payor and decision-maker of claims than most courts, the Court pointed to MetLife’s failure to have the claimant personally examined as well as the failure to make inquiries to its medical reviewers with regard to how stress effects the claimant’s coronary artery disease, despite stress being the main concern of the claimant’s treating physicians, as arbitrary and capricious behavior. Overall, the opinion is eloquent, brave, refreshing and is certainly worth a read for anyone who needs hope in tackling ERISA in our current claimant-unfriendly (but gradually improving) environment. Blankenship v. MetLife, decided December 30, 2009
