Quantcast

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Judge issues order granting woman's motion to compel LINA to produce witness

Lawsuits
Insurance 06

ST. LOUIS – Judge Jean C. Hamilton of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued an order granting a woman’s motion to compel her insurance company to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify as to its determination that she was disabled and eligible for long-term disability benefits.

Hamilton’s April 17 order is a victory for Melanie Lapidus, who sued Life Insurance Co. of North America in response to its denial of her long term disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Lapidus’ lawsuit was filed after efforts to obtain the benefits in question had failed.

The ruling states Lapidus was approved for LTD benefits by the defendant in August 2016 and the benefits were later denied that December. Lapidus appealed the denial of her claim twice.

The order explained that parties have agreed to and engaged in limited discovery in this case, which involved the production of the insurer’s administrative record. According to the order, Lapidus asserted that the administrative record contains “no documentation of the defendant’s reasons for initially approving the plaintiff’s benefits claim in August of 2016.”

Despite the parties’ agreement to making a witness available, they were at odds over the plaintiff’s request for the respondent to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness.

Hamilton ruled that “while depositions of corporate representatives are generally disfavored in ERISA cases, the defendant in this case previously offered to make a witness available to the plaintiff.”

“Upon review of the briefing and attached exhibits and the defendant’s willingness to provide a witness to the plaintiff, the court will allow the plaintiff to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition limited to the defendant’s initial determination that the plaintiff was disabled and eligible for LTD benefits, and the facts on which that initial determination was based,” wrote Hamilton. “The defendant has voluntarily participated in discovery with the plaintiff about whether a conflict of interest exists and the creation and maintenance of the administrative record.”

More News