Long Term Disability Lawyers, 1 Old Country Road, Carle Place, Carle Place, NY (2026)

10/01/2026

By Justin C. Frankel, Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C.
Your long-term disability insurer acknowledges that you have medical problems. It may even agree that you cannot return to your former job. Yet it denies or terminates your benefits because it concludes that you can perform “sedentary work.”
For someone living with chronic pain, fatigue, cognitive impairment, or other significant limitations, that conclusion can be difficult to understand. How are you supposed to maintain a desk job when you cannot sit comfortably, concentrate consistently, or get through the day without resting?
The ability to perform some seated activities does not automatically establish the ability to work. Whether a sedentary-work finding supports a disability denial depends on your policy’s language, your documented limitations, and the demands of the occupation being evaluated.
What Is Sedentary Work?
“Sedentary” generally describes the physical demands of an occupation. In Social Security’s classification, sedentary work involves primarily sitting, lifting no more than 10 pounds at a time, and some occasional standing and walking. That classification describes exertional demands; it does not establish that a particular person can perform every requirement of a desk job.
Your private disability insurance claim is governed by its own policy and applicable law. Social Security’s rules do not automatically control the insurer’s decision.
A sedentary occupation may still require sustained attention, accurate decision-making, frequent computer use, communication with colleagues, and dependable attendance. Those demands deserve consideration alongside the physical requirements.
Can You Qualify for LTD Benefits If You Can Sit?
Yes, depending on the policy and the evidence.
Sitting through a medical appointment, answering a few emails, or using a computer briefly at home does not necessarily demonstrate the capacity to maintain a work schedule.
A job requiring prolonged computer work, scheduled meetings, and consistent availability presents a different level of physical and cognitive demand. The ability to sit briefly, only with frequent unscheduled breaks, does not translate into the capacity to perform full‑time work on a predictable schedule. LTD insurers focus on whether you can sustain work‑appropriate functioning day after day—not whether you can tolerate isolated moments of sitting at home.
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation (516) 222-1600 and learn how an experienced ERISA disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

09/24/2026

Understanding Unum Long-Term Disability Claims: What Every Professional Should Know
When a medical condition prevents you from working, long-term disability (LTD) benefits can provide critical financial support. For many professionals, Unum long-term disability claims become a lifeline during periods of serious illness, injury, or chronic medical impairment. However, obtaining and keeping benefits is often more complicated than simply submitting medical records.
How Unum Evaluates Long-Term Disability Claims
Like most disability insurers, Unum does not approve benefits solely because a claimant has been diagnosed with a medical condition. Instead, the focus is on functional impairment. In other words, the key question is whether your symptoms prevent you from performing the material duties of your occupation.
This distinction is important. Two individuals may share the same diagnosis, yet one may qualify for benefits while the other does not, depending on how the condition affects their ability to work. As a result, medical records should document not only diagnoses but also specific restrictions, limitations, and work-related consequences.
Common Conditions in Unum Disability Claims
Unum receives claims involving a wide range of medical conditions, including:
• Chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)
• Long COVID
• Autoimmune disorders
• Neurological conditions
• Musculoskeletal injuries
• Chronic pain syndromes
• Psychiatric conditions such as depression, anxiety, and PTSD
• Sleep disorders and cognitive impairments
Many of these conditions involve symptoms that fluctuate or are difficult to measure through traditional diagnostic testing. In these cases, consistent treatment records and detailed physician observations often become particularly important.
Why Claims Are Frequently Challenged
One of the most common issues in Unum disability claims is the insurer's reliance on paper reviews performed by consulting physicians who never examine the claimant. These reviews may focus on perceived gaps in treatment, normal diagnostic findings, or isolated records that appear inconsistent with disability.
Claimants are often surprised to learn that having a serious diagnosis does not automatically translate into benefit approval. Unum may request updated medical records, questionnaires, attending physician statements, or interviews throughout the life of a claim.
For that reason, ongoing treatment and regular documentation of symptoms, restrictions, and functional limitations are essential.
The Importance of Occupational Evidence
A successful disability claim requires more than proving a medical condition exists. The evidence must demonstrate how that condition affects the claimant's specific occupation.
For example, an executive, physician, attorney, engineer, or financial professional may have occupational duties that require sustained concentration, decision-making, memory, multitasking, interpersonal interaction, and the ability to perform under pressure. Even where physical examinations appear relatively normal, documented cognitive, psychiatric, fatigue-related, or pain-related limitations may significantly impair the ability to perform these demanding occupations.
The strongest claims often connect the medical evidence directly to the claimant's actual job responsibilities.
What to Do If Your Claim Is Denied
A denial is not necessarily the end of the process. Many claimants successfully challenge adverse decisions through the appeal process.
An effective appeal typically addresses the insurer's stated reasons for denial, obtains additional support from treating physicians, clarifies occupational demands, and supplements the record with evidence that may have been overlooked. In ERISA-governed claims, building a complete administrative record during the appeal stage can be particularly important because later opportunities to submit evidence may be limited.
Final Thoughts
Unum long-term disability claims are often won or lost based on the quality of the evidence presented. Medical diagnoses matter, but detailed proof of functional impairment and occupational impact is usually what drives the outcome.
Claimants should focus on maintaining consistent treatment, communicating openly with their providers about work-related limitations, and ensuring that the medical record accurately reflects the real-world effects of their condition. A well-documented claim not only increases the likelihood of approval but can also help protect benefits during ongoing claim reviews.
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation (516) 222-1600 and learn how an experienced ERISA disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

09/16/2026

Securing Long-Term Disability Benefits for a Medical Professional with Narcolepsy
At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we understand that some of the most challenging disability claims involve conditions that may not be visible to others but profoundly impact a person's ability to work. One recent victory involved a highly accomplished physician whose career depended upon sustained concentration, rapid decision-making, attention to detail, and the ability to remain alert while caring for patients and managing complex medical responsibilities.
Our client suffered from narcolepsy without cataplexy, a neurological sleep disorder that caused overwhelming daytime sleepiness, brain fog, cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, impaired concentration, and an inability to remain awake and alert for prolonged periods. Objective sleep testing confirmed the diagnosis, including a Multiple Sleep Latency Test demonstrating pathological sleepiness and sleep-onset REM periods consistent with narcolepsy. Treating physicians repeatedly documented excessive daytime sleepiness, memory problems, concentration difficulties, fatigue, and the need for frequent naps throughout the day.
Although our client had spent years building a successful medical career, the condition progressively worsened. Medical records documented severe daytime hypersomnolence, cognitive impairment, brain fog, and functional limitations that interfered with the ability to safely perform the duties of a physician. Even routine daily activities became increasingly difficult, and our client reported making mistakes, experiencing confusion, and struggling to maintain the cognitive clarity required in a medical environment. Treating providers specifically noted that these impairments led to a leave of absence and disability application because the client no longer believed it was safe to continue practicing medicine under these conditions.
Like many disability insurance carriers, MetLife carefully scrutinized the claim. The challenge was not simply establishing a diagnosis. Rather, it was proving how the documented symptoms translated into real-world occupational impairment. Narcolepsy is often misunderstood because individuals may appear normal during brief office visits while still experiencing debilitating fatigue, cognitive slowing, excessive sleepiness, and unpredictable lapses in alertness that make sustained professional work impossible.
Our firm's advocacy focused on demonstrating the critical connection between the client's documented medical condition and the actual demands of the occupation. We worked closely with the medical evidence, treatment records, sleep medicine findings, and physician statements to show that a position requiring continuous vigilance, clinical judgment, patient safety oversight, and complex decision-making could not be performed safely by someone suffering from severe daytime hypersomnolence, cognitive dysfunction, and an ongoing need for multiple daytime naps.
The medical evidence showed that despite extensive treatment efforts, including Xywav, stimulant medications, antidepressant therapies, and ongoing specialty care, the client continued to experience disabling symptoms. Providers repeatedly documented persistent sleepiness, impaired concentration, fatigue, attention deficits, and significant functional impairment despite aggressive treatment. The treating sleep specialist specifically recognized that residual symptoms remained disabling and that the client continued to suffer from disability despite medication trials.
Our legal team assembled the evidence in a manner that clearly illustrated not only the diagnosis itself, but also the practical reality of how narcolepsy was preventing our client from performing the substantial duties of a highly demanding professional occupation. We highlighted the objective testing, treatment history, medication side effects, physician opinions, occupational demands, and the safety concerns associated with attempting to continue working while suffering from uncontrolled excessive daytime sleepiness and cognitive impairment.
As a result of this comprehensive advocacy, MetLife approved our client's Long-Term Disability benefits.
This case reflects an important principle that we emphasize in every disability claim: obtaining benefits is often about much more than proving a medical condition exists. Insurance companies frequently focus on diagnoses while overlooking the practical impact those conditions have on an individual's ability to work. Our role is to bridge that gap by presenting compelling medical, occupational, and vocational evidence that demonstrates why a claimant can no longer safely and reliably perform the duties of their profession.
At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we are proud to stand beside professionals facing life-altering medical conditions and fight for the disability benefits they deserve. When insurance companies question the severity of a condition or fail to appreciate the true impact of an illness on a person's occupational functioning, our team works tirelessly to ensure that our clients' voices are heard and their claims are fully supported.
This successful outcome allowed our client to obtain the financial security and peace of mind needed to focus on treatment, recovery, and quality of life rather than the uncertainty of a denied disability claim.
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation (516) 222-1600 and learn how an experienced ERISA disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

09/10/2026

Federal Court Reverses Equitable LTD Denial After Insurer Overlooked Mental-Health Evidence
Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C.
A Thorough Review Must Account for the Entire Claim File
In a recent ERISA long-term disability decision, a federal court reversed Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company of America’s termination of benefits and returned the claim to the insurer for further review. The court found that the insurer’s medical review failed to meaningfully address evidence of the claimant’s mental-health condition—even though that evidence appeared repeatedly in the administrative record.
The decision, Pickering v. Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company of America, No. 1:25-cv-00046 (D. Utah Sept. 3, 2026), highlights an important principle in disability claims: an insurer cannot accurately evaluate a claimant’s ability to work without considering all relevant medical evidence in the claim file.
Equitable Terminated Benefits at the Any Occupation Transition
Michael Pickering worked in a warehouse and stopped working because of congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension. Equitable initially approved his claim for long-term disability benefits under the policy’s “Own Occupation” definition of disability.
After 24 months, however, the policy’s definition changed. To continue receiving benefits, Pickering had to establish that he could not perform the essential duties of “Any Occupation” for which he was qualified by education, training or experience and that satisfied the policy’s earnings requirement.
Equitable terminated the claim after determining that Pickering could perform full-time sedentary work. Its vocational analysis identified several alternative occupations, including es**rt vehicle driver, eyeglass-frame inspector, sorter, preparer, compact assembler and table worker.
The Treating Physician Identified Additional Limitations
During Equitable’s review, Pickering’s treating physician reported that Pickering could not perform full-time sedentary work. The physician specifically identified anxiety, cognitive difficulties and impaired social skills as conditions affecting his ability to function in a work setting.
Nevertheless, the medical case manager whose conclusions supported Equitable’s vocational analysis stated that the record contained no mention of mental-health treatment or care. The court found that statement inconsistent with the administrative record, which referenced Pickering’s anxiety disorder, treatment and medications on multiple occasions.
Although an ERISA plan administrator is not automatically required to accept a treating physician’s opinion, it cannot arbitrarily disregard reliable medical evidence. The court found that Equitable’s review missed relevant evidence and failed to properly engage with the treating physician’s opinion.
Because the insurer had not adequately considered the evidence, the court reversed the denial and remanded the claim to Equitable for a new determination.
The Court Also Addressed the Mental-Health Limitation
Equitable argued that further benefits would be unavailable even if Pickering’s mental-health condition prevented him from working because the policy limited benefits for disability caused by mental illness to 24 months. According to Equitable, Pickering had already received 24 months of LTD benefits.
The court rejected that argument.
Pickering’s initial claim was based on physical conditions: congestive heart failure, COPD and hypertension. His mental-health condition had not been relied upon to establish disability during the first 24 months. The court reasoned that the policy’s use of the words “because of” required a mental illness to play a causal role in the claimant’s disability before the limitation could be triggered.
Therefore, the prior payment of benefits based on physical conditions did not automatically exhaust the separate 24-month period potentially available for a disability caused by mental illness.
What This Decision Means for LTD Claimants
The Pickering decision provides several practical lessons for individuals pursuing or appealing a long-term disability claim.
1. Every disabling condition should be documented
A disability determination should evaluate the combined effect of all conditions that affect the claimant’s ability to work. Physical symptoms, cognitive difficulties, anxiety, depression, medication side effects and other limitations may interact in ways that are more disabling than any single diagnosis viewed in isolation.
2. A diagnosis alone is not enough
Medical records should explain how a condition affects work-related functioning. Depending on the occupation and medical condition, relevant limitations may include difficulty concentrating, maintaining pace, interacting with others, attending work reliably, sitting for extended periods or sustaining performance throughout a full workday and workweek.
3. Insurer reviews should be checked against the actual record
Insurance-company reviewers sometimes state that the file lacks treatment, testing or clinical findings when the record contains that information. Those statements should be compared carefully with the medical records, physician opinions and other evidence submitted during the claim and appeal.
4. The change from Own Occupation to Any Occupation is critical
Many group LTD policies change their definition of disability after 24 months. An insurer may accept that a claimant cannot perform a former occupation but later contend that the claimant can perform other work. A strong administrative record must address not only medical restrictions and limitations, but also the claimant’s education, training, experience, earnings requirements and realistic vocational capacity.
5. Mental-health limitations require careful policy analysis
Policies often limit benefits for disabilities caused by mental or nervous conditions. Whether such a limitation applies—and when it begins to run—depends on the particular policy language, the medical evidence and the role the condition plays in causing disability. The court’s ruling in Pickering does not mean that every claimant receives a new 24-month period. It does demonstrate why an insurer should not apply a mental-health limitation without first analyzing causation and the basis on which prior benefits were paid.
The Administrative Appeal May Be the Most Important Stage
For most employer-sponsored LTD claims governed by ERISA, the administrative appeal is the claimant’s principal opportunity to build the evidentiary record. Medical records, functional assessments, physician explanations, vocational evidence and responses to insurer reviews should ordinarily be submitted before the insurer issues its final appeal decision.
An appeal should do more than repeat that the claimant is sick or unable to work. It should identify errors in the insurer’s analysis, connect the medical evidence to specific occupational demands and address every policy provision the insurer may rely upon.
Speak With an Experienced Long-Term Disability Attorney
If your long-term disability claim has been denied or your benefits have been terminated, the deadlines for submitting an appeal may be short. The Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. represents individuals in long-term disability claims and ERISA administrative appeals nationwide.
To learn more, visit www.jfrankellaw.com.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court decisions depend on their particular facts, policy language and governing law. The decision discussed above was issued by a federal district court and may not be binding in other jurisdictions. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Decision: Pickering v. Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company of America, No. 1:25-cv-00046 (D. Utah Sept. 3, 2026)
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation and learn how an experienced disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

09/02/2026

WHY ITS IMPORTANT FOR DENSITST TO SEEK LEGAL GUIDANCE PRIOR TO FILING A LONG TERM DISABILITY CLAIM
For many dentists, an individual disability insurance (IDI) policy is one of the most valuable financial protections they own. However, when a disability occurs, many claimants are surprised to learn that proving an own-occupation disability claim involves far more than submitting medical records.
Insurance companies often request extensive documentation, including:
• Tax returns and business financial records
• Production reports
• CDT procedure codes
• Practice revenue data
• Hygiene and associate production information
• Appointment schedules and procedural breakdowns
• Employment contracts and ownership documents
While these requests may appear routine, the information provided can significantly affect how the insurance company evaluates the claim.
A common mistake dentists make is assuming that financial and production records speak for themselves. In reality, insurers frequently analyze billing codes, procedure mix, time allocation, and income trends to determine whether the insured is truly unable to perform the material duties of their occupation. Without proper context, the data can be interpreted in a way that minimizes the severity of a disability or creates an inaccurate picture of the dentist's actual work responsibilities.
For example, a dentist who can no longer perform crown preparations, extractions, implant procedures, or other hands-on clinical duties may still have residual practice income. An insurer may attempt to use that income as evidence of work capacity unless the supporting documentation is carefully reviewed and properly explained.
An experienced long-term disability attorney can help identify potential issues before records are submitted, ensure responses are accurate and complete, and present occupational and financial evidence in a manner that reflects the reality of the dentist's disability. This is especially important in own-occupation claims, where the focus is not simply whether the dentist can work somewhere, but whether they can perform the substantial and material duties of their occupation as a dentist.
The strongest claims are often the ones that are prepared correctly from the beginning. Reviewing financial records, procedure codes, practice documents, and occupational duties before submission can help avoid unnecessary disputes and place the claim in the strongest possible position for approval.
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation and learn how an experienced disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

08/19/2026

From Denial to Reinstatement: Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. Secures Reinstatement of Wrongfully Terminated Short-Term Disability Benefits

At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we routinely represent claimants whose disability benefits have been unfairly denied or terminated despite overwhelming medical support. In a recent matter, our firm successfully secured the reinstatement of a client's short-term disability benefits after Sedgwick wrongfully terminated the claim based on an incomplete and unsupported review of the evidence. The case highlights the importance of a comprehensive appeal that focuses not only on medical records, but also on the real-world impact a disabling condition has on an individual's ability to perform the duties of their occupation.
The Wrongful Termination
Our client had been receiving short-term disability benefits after becoming unable to work due to serious medically documented conditions. Despite continued treatment, ongoing symptoms, and supporting opinions from treating providers, Sedgwick terminated benefits before the client had recovered sufficiently to return to work. Like many disability claim terminations, the decision relied heavily on a paper review conducted by consultants who never personally examined the claimant and who discounted significant evidence from the treating medical providers.
The benefit termination failed to account for the totality of the medical evidence, disregarded documented functional limitations, and overlooked the actual requirements of the claimant's occupation. Rather than conducting a balanced assessment, the claim administrator selectively relied on portions of the record that supported denial while minimizing evidence demonstrating continued disability.
Our Appeal Strategy
The Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. developed a detailed and evidence-driven appeal challenging every aspect of Sedgwick's determination. Our team carefully reviewed the claim file and assembled a compelling record demonstrating that the claimant remained unable to perform the material duties of their occupation during the disputed period.
The appeal focused on several critical issues:
• Demonstrating that the treating providers consistently documented ongoing symptoms, restrictions, and limitations that prevented a return to work.
• Highlighting Sedgwick's overreliance on non-examining reviewers whose opinions conflicted with those of providers who had personally evaluated and treated the claimant.
• Showing that the insurer failed to adequately consider how the claimant's medical impairments translated into functional limitations in the workplace.
• Establishing that the denial was based on a selective and incomplete review of the record rather than a full and fair evaluation of all available evidence.
• Supporting the appeal with legal authority emphasizing the importance of considering treating provider opinions, subjective symptoms, and occupational demands when evaluating disability claims.
The Result
After reviewing our appeal submission and the extensive evidence supporting continued disability, Sedgwick reversed its prior determination and reinstated the claimant's short-term disability benefits. The successful outcome ensured that our client received the benefits they were entitled to receive while continuing treatment and recovery.
Why We Were Successful
This victory reflects a principle that guides every disability appeal our firm handles, insurers and claim administrators must evaluate the entire claim record, not isolated pieces of evidence that support a denial. By presenting a complete medical narrative, documenting functional limitations, addressing vocational demands, and holding the claims administrator accountable to its obligations, we were able to demonstrate that the termination decision could not withstand scrutiny.
At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we understand that disability claims are about more than paperwork. They are about protecting the financial security of individuals who are unable to work because of legitimate medical conditions. When benefits are wrongfully denied or terminated, our firm works aggressively to build a persuasive evidentiary and legal record that gives our clients the best possible opportunity to obtain the benefits they deserve.
Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. today for a free consultation (516) 222-1600 and learn how an experienced ERISA disability attorney can help protect your rights and maximize your chances of success.
Justin C. Frankel is the founder of the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, PC, a Long Island, New York headquartered law firm representing clients nationwide in disability insurance claims. For more information please go to our website www.jfrankellaw.com.

08/12/2026

Reinstating Long-Term Disability Benefits After Unum Terminated a Claim That Had Been Approved for 16 Years
At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we recently secured the reinstatement of a client's long-term disability benefits after Unum wrongfully terminated a claim that had been continuously approved and paid for approximately sixteen years.
The termination was particularly troubling because the claimant's disabling medical conditions had not improved. Despite years of medical documentation supporting disability, ongoing treatment, and a lengthy history of benefit payments, Unum abruptly determined that the claimant was allegedly capable of returning to work and terminated benefits. Like many insurers, Unum relied heavily on file reviews, selective interpretation of the medical evidence, and an analysis that minimized the real-world impact of the claimant's limitations.
Our firm immediately undertook a comprehensive review of the entire claim file. Rather than simply responding to the insurer's conclusions, we built a detailed administrative appeal that addressed every aspect of the termination decision. We carefully analyzed the medical records, treating physician opinions, diagnostic testing, functional limitations, occupational requirements, vocational evidence, and the insurer's consultant reports. We identified multiple flaws in the insurer's analysis and demonstrated how critical evidence had been ignored, mischaracterized, or taken out of context.
One of the central themes of our appeal was that disability claims cannot be evaluated by focusing on isolated records while ignoring the totality of the evidence. The medical record as a whole demonstrated continuing impairments that prevented the claimant from performing the material and substantial duties of work on a full-time, reliable basis. We highlighted objective findings, treatment history, chronic symptoms, pain-related limitations, functional restrictions, and the longitudinal opinions of treating providers who had followed the claimant for years.
Our appeal also exposed significant deficiencies in the insurer's vocational and medical reviews. We demonstrated that the consultants failed to adequately consider the claimant's actual functional capacity and instead relied upon theoretical work abilities that were inconsistent with the documented medical evidence. We further showed that the insurer's analysis ignored the practical realities of sustained employment, including the need to perform work activities consistently, predictably, and eight hours per day, five days per week.
In addition, we emphasized an important issue that frequently arises in long-term disability claims: the failure to properly evaluate chronic pain and its vocational consequences. Even when diagnostic studies may not fully capture the severity of symptoms, insurers are still obligated to evaluate the functional effects of pain, fatigue, medication side effects, and other disabling symptoms. Our appeal demonstrated that these factors had not been given meaningful consideration.
After reviewing our submission, Unum reversed its decision and reinstated the claimant's long-term disability benefits.
This result is a powerful reminder that insurance companies do not always get it right. Even claimants who have received benefits for many years can unexpectedly face termination when an insurer decides to reevaluate a claim. Unfortunately, many individuals assume that a long payment history guarantees future benefits. Our experience shows that insurers continue to scrutinize claims regardless of how long benefits have been paid.
The appeal process is often the most important stage of a disability claim. In many cases, it represents the claimant's last opportunity to fully develop the evidentiary record before litigation. A well-prepared appeal can mean the difference between a terminated claim and restored benefits.
At the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C., we focus extensively on disability insurance appeals and understand the strategies insurers use to deny or terminate claims. We routinely challenge improper medical reviews, flawed vocational assessments, surveillance-based determinations, paper-only physician reviews, and selective interpretations of medical evidence. Most importantly, we know how to build a persuasive administrative record designed to withstand scrutiny and maximize a claimant's chances of success.
If your long-term disability benefits have been denied or terminated do not assume the insurer's decision is final. The right appeal can make all the difference. Our firm has successfully helped claimants overturn disability determinations and restore critical benefits.
When your financial security is at stake, experience matters. Contact the Law Office of Justin C. Frankel, P.C. to discuss your disability appeal and learn how we may be able to help protect the benefits you have earned.

Long Term Disability Lawyers

10/01/2026

09/24/2026

09/16/2026

09/10/2026

09/02/2026

08/19/2026

08/12/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request