Quadrino Schwartz, your resource for Insurance, Class Actions, and Business Law

Court Cites to Quadrino & Schwartz Case Regarding Subjective Complaints of Pain

In many instances, disability insurance companies refuse to pay a claim if there is no “objective” proof that pain actually exists. However, there is often no test, MRI, x-ray or other mechanism that can prove the existence of pain.

Quadrino & Schwartz takes the position, on behalf of its clients, that a sworn statement by the disabled individual is indeed “proof” in many cases and that the insurance company must consider these complaints of pain, even if there are no definitive tests that can establish the existence of the pain. In the recent case of Chan v. Hartford Life, a New York court issued a ruling that requires the insurance company to consider subjective complaints of pain. The Chan court relied upon a prior important decision obtained by Quadrino & Schwartz in Connors v. Connecticut General, 272 F.3d 127 (2nd Cir. 2001). In Connors, we convinced a federal appeals court to institute the rule requiring the insurance company to consider subjective complaints, in conjunction with all of the other evidence in a claim file.

If other courts now join in and follow the Connors ruling, many people who suffer pain but cannot obtain proof from a test may be in a better position to stop their benefits from being cut off. And if the benefits are terminated, at least the Connors and Chan cases can be used as ammunition in the legal battle to get benefits reinstated.