X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
A suggestive letter to a doctor who was hired to conduct an independent medical exam (IME) is potential evidence of an insurer’s bad faith, a federal judge in Philadelphia has ruled. In Atiyeh v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., U.S. District Judge Bruce W. Kauffman of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that it made no difference that an outside contractor had authored the allegedly suggestive letter because the insurer received a copy and was aware of it when it cut off the insured’s lost wages benefits. The letter was sent by a representative from Concentra Medical Examinations to Dr. M. Barry Lipson and asked that, in conducting his IME, he “address return to work issues” for Huda Atiyeh, who was claiming that she was disabled after a car accident. Atiyeh claims the letter ended with two strongly suggestive sentences that each carried an exclamation point: “Please see enclosed pictures of claimant’s car depicting very minimal damage! Claimant has been out on disability for nine months now!” Judge Kauffman agreed that the letter supported Atiyeh’s bad-faith claim. “Plaintiff has demonstrated that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the IME was a reasonable basis for defendant to discontinue plaintiff’s wage loss benefits, because Dr. Lipson may have been unduly influenced by the statements on the Concentra referral letter,” Kauffman wrote. And since a Liberty Mutual claims representative received the letter, Kauffman found that “there is also a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant knew or recklessly disregarded the risk that the IME did not constitute a reasonable basis for defendant’s decision.” Atiyeh’s auto policy provided wage loss benefits of up to $50,000. She submitted a claim in March 1999 and was paid more than $23,000 by January 2000. Her treating doctor diagnosed a herniated disc in her spinal cord and certified her as disabled for nine months. When the certified period ended, Liberty Mutual claims representative Susan Koval decided to request an IME and gave Atiyeh’s file to Concentra Medical, which in turn mailed the letter to Lipson. Lipson conducted the IME in December 1999 and later said in a report that Atiyeh “is not in any way impaired or disabled or requires any treatment, as a result of the motor vehicle accident. She is capable of performing the same activities and job requirements that she was able to carry out, as of 3/19/99.” Liberty Mutual quickly cut off Atiyeh’s benefits. Atiyeh later submitted to a “functional capacity evaluation” by Don Evans, who reported that she could return to work part time if she were provided breaks and accommodations. Her own doctor also said in February 2000 that Atiyeh could return to “light duty sedentary work on a part-time basis.” In the suit, Atiyeh’s lawyer, Edith C. Rysdyk of Scherline & Associates in Allentown, Pa., argued that Liberty Mutual engaged in bad-faith conduct when it refused to pay at least partial wage loss benefits. Liberty Mutual’s lawyers, William C. Foster and Steven Chung of Philadelphia’s Kelly, McLaughlin & Foster, argued that the IME gave the insurer a reasonable basis for discontinuing the wage loss benefits. But Rysdyk argued that the IME wasn’t reliable because the Concentra referral letter “suggests to the doctor what the desired opinion should state.” She also argued that it was improper for the doctor to be given photographs of Atiyeh’s car without also providing property damage estimates that would better inform him as to the severity of the accident. Judge Kauffman sided entirely with Rysdyk, finding that a jury should decide if Liberty Mutual acted in bad faith. Looking at the entire picture, Kauffman said, Atiyeh could argue to the jury that the insurer knew she was able to return to work only on a part-time basis, but nonetheless denied all wage loss benefits. “[Claims rep] Koval admitted that if a claimant has coverage for wage loss benefits and a doctor indicates that the claimant can only work part time, [Liberty Mutual] pays partial benefits. … Koval further admitted that, following the decision to terminate benefits, she never revisited the issue as to whether defendant should have reinstated wage loss benefits — whether full or partial — to plaintiff based on medical records,” Kauffman wrote. “A reasonable jury could find that defendant knew or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis for not paying partial wage loss benefits, particularly if, as defendant argues in its summary judgment motion, [the] decision to discontinue benefits was supported by reports indicating that plaintiff was capable of returning to work on a part-time basis,” he wrote.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.