The Court ruled that Met Life was arbitrary and capricious in its consideration of Plaintiff’s claim, based upon a number of factors seen regularly in these cases. Plaintiff suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, an illness marked by a lack of true objective evidence.
The Court was troubled by Met Life’s insistence upon objective evidence to support a disability from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which the Court noted was a condition that is marked by the absence of any such objective evidence, as well as Met Life’s failure to provide Plaintiff with appropriate notice of what evidence it was seeking in order to approve the claim. The Court was also troubled by Met Life’s reliance upon Dr. Maslow’s “shoddy and incomplete” report and Dr. Payne’s “flawed” report, and its failure to consider the findings from Plaintiff’s Social Security disability claim, which had found Plaintiff to be credible and his complaints supported by objective evidence.
Many of these factors parallel the issues which appeared in Met Life v. Glenn, and thus, it appears that the Court’s are becoming more sensitive to the claim handling bias and the resulted oriented processes of insurers.