Free Consultation 877.583.2524
We do not handle social security disability claims
logo celebrating

Nationwide Leaders in Disability Insurance Law

shook hands


Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

A recent decision by a Federal Judge in North Carolina supports such a line of thinking. Here, the Court determined that Aetna failed to properly consider subjective evidence (a common theme of Aetna), as well as providing “scant attention” to the supportive medical evidence. Here, the claimant, a commercial pilot, was suffering from significant orthopedic problems, supported by testing results. Aetna denied the claim, asserting that the medical evidence did not support the inability to perform the material duties of his own occupation. Despite significant additional medical evidence being submitted on appeal, Aetna continued to refuse to accept liability.

The Court was asked to determine the matter upon competing motions for judgment. The Court determined that Aetna’s “decision making process was not reasoned and principled and relied upon materials inadequate to constitute substantial evidence to support its decision.” In reaching this decision, the Court noted that “subjective evidence is not only relevant, but may sufficient in itself to support the claim.” Further, the Court stated that “to discount such evidence as Defendant does demonstrates an errant process.” As discussed by the Court, the “failure to lend weight to the subjective evidence or explain its role in Defendant’s decision led to an unreasonable decision to deny benefits.”

The Court also determined that Aetna’s financial conflict of interest was significant. After noting that conflicts are but one factor to give consideration to in deciding these ERISA cases, the Court determined that Aetna’s claim handling conduct, as noted above and within the decision, supported a finding that the conflict was significant.

Based upon the significance of the Court’s findings, the Court awarded as a remedy reinstatement of all outstanding disability benefits, prejudgment interest on this retroactive benefit payment, and costs and attorneys fees to be awarded to plaintiff.

Cline v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

Justin C Frankel

Written By:

Justin C. Frankel - Disability Insurance Attorney

Justin Frankel is a founding partner of the disability insurance law firm Frankel & Newfield and is a highly skilled litigator and advocate. He has published numerous articles on the challenges facing clients with private or individual disability insurance policies and those who own group or ERISA disability insurance policies.

Learn more about Justin | See Justin’s Publications



Ready To Talk?

Fill out the form to request a FREE legal consultation

Sorry, we do not handle SSDI/Social Security claims.

Frankel & Newfield does not currently handle any Social Security Disability Insurance claims.


*Required fields are marked

I have read the disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


This is about a Social Security Disability claim.

Ipad image

Download Our Free eBook


Secrets the Disability Insurance Companies Don't Want You to know!

Sign Up for our mailing list to receive disability insurance law updates

Your information is 100% secure and will never be shared with anyone


No matter where you are nationwide, we are here to help.

We have the resources and support to take on the largest insurance companies.

Contact us today for our nationwide service.

Contact Us
Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri
Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina
South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming