Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Denials Attorney
Has Metropolitan Life Denied Your Disability Claim?
If Metropolitan Life denied your long term disability claim, you are not alone. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, often called MetLife, is a major disability insurer. Many MetLife long term disability claims are governed by ERISA, which makes the appeal stage especially important because the administrative record often largely controls what a court will review later.
Eric Buchanan & Associates represents disabled professionals nationwide in ERISA and disability insurance matters. We help people challenge MetLife denials by building the medical and vocational record the right way, then using that record to demand a full and fair review.
Documented History of Metlife’s Claim Practices
Paper reviews instead of meaningful evaluation
MetLife often relies on record only reviews by doctors who never examine the claimant. Courts have criticized denials that discount treating physicians without a clear, evidence based explanation.
Selective reading of the claim file
MetLife may focus on isolated notes and ignore the full history over time, including symptom flares, fatigue, pain, cognitive limits, and medication side effects.
Procedural problems and unclear denials
Some MetLife denials involve process failures that can undermine a full and fair review, including unclear denial letters, missing explanations, and mistakes about what evidence is needed or how to appeal.
Metlife’s Claim Practices And Legal History
In MetLife litigation, courts have examined whether MetLife provided a full and fair review and whether its denial communications clearly explained the basis for the decision. In one case, the court criticized MetLife’s handling of the claim and pointed to basic failures in its denial communications.
“MetLife’s processing of Carty’s claim reflects breakdowns on multiple levels, including an initial denial letter that failed the most basic tests of clear, professional communication.”
Carty v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2017 WL 660680, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 17, 2017).
The denial letter becomes the foundation MetLife uses to defend its decision. If it is vague, inconsistent, or missing key explanations, it can interfere with a fair opportunity to respond. That is why MetLife disputes can turn on both the strength of the evidence and whether the claim was handled through a full and fair review process.
Our Successful Cases Against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Smith v. Babcock and Wilcox Technical Services, LLC
In this ERISA action, the court ruled that MetLife’s denial of the plaintiff’s long-term disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious, remanding the case for a full and fair review. The plaintiff, a former project manager diagnosed with lymphocytic leukemia, sought benefits due to severe fatigue, chronic gastritis, and extreme stress and anxiety triggered by his cancer. Despite extensive treating physician records attributing his debilitating gastrointestinal symptoms to psychiatric stressors, MetLife repeatedly denied the claim based on file-only reviews by an independent physician consultant who conceded he was unqualified to evaluate mental health limitations. Applying an arbitrary and capricious standard, the court determined that MetLife lacked substantial evidence for its decision, finding that the administrator engaged in a haphazard and selective review that ignored favorable evidence, improperly made adverse credibility determinations without a physical examination, and failed to utilize a qualified professional to assess the plaintiff’s mental health.
Satterwhite v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
In Satterwhite v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., the court repeatedly found MetLife’s termination of the client’s long-term disability benefits to be arbitrary and capricious, ultimately ordering an award of benefits and full attorney’s fees. MetLife initially terminated the benefits after 24 months, relying on a non-examining file reviewer who ignored extensive medical evidence, faulted the client for unrequested information, and misapplied the policy’s “regular care” requirement. After the court remanded the case for a fair review, MetLife again denied the claim using unspecialized, non-examining consulting physicians who misconstrued a doctor’s statement while ignoring the client’s continuous Social Security disability status and MetLife’s own past approvals. Because MetLife failed to conduct an independent medical examination, ignored court guidance, and failed to request specific objective evidence from the client, the court determined that a second remand would be futile due to MetLife’s clear bad faith, thereby directly awarding the client her long-term disability benefits.
Landry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
After an oil field equipment mechanic became disabled, he sought legal representation when MetLife Insurance Company underpaid his short-term disability benefits, offered an inadequate lump-sum settlement, and refused to provide his policy documents or adjust his monthly payments. When the law firm sued, MetLife attempted to dismiss the case by arguing that the client missed the policy’s three-year lawsuit deadline, failed to submit a formal “appeal,” and missed the 180-day administrative appeal window. The court rejected all of MetLife’s arguments, ruling that the client was never provided the policy to know the deadlines, his written request for a “review” legally constituted an appeal, and MetLife’s failure to issue a proper adverse benefit determination waived the 180-day limit. Furthermore, because MetLife failed to strictly adhere to ERISA regulations, the court applied a de novo standard of review instead of giving deference to the insurer, ultimately ruling in the client’s favor and remanding the case back to MetLife for a full, fair review based on an accurate evaluation of the client’s financial records.
Platt v. Walgreen Income Protection Plan for Store Managers (& MetLife)
In Platt v. Walgreen Income Protection Plan for Store Managers, 455 F.Supp.2d 734 (M.D. Tenn. 2006), the court overturned MetLife’s decision to deny a client’s long-term disability (LTD) benefits under ERISA, despite an “arbitrary and capricious” standard of review that favored the insurer. Although the court could not consider crucial medical evidence submitted by counsel because the client had already exhausted her single administrative appeal on her own, the court ultimately found MetLife’s denial to be arbitrary. The court ruled that while MetLife was not required to defer to the treating physicians, its paid, file-reviewing consultants could not improperly discredit the claimant’s subjective pain complaints or medical diagnoses without conducting a physical examination, especially since the policy allowed for one. Furthermore, taking into account MetLife’s conflict of interest as both the claims administrator and benefit provider, the court determined that the insurer’s failure to conduct an independent medical exam or functional capacity evaluation—even after its own consulting doctor recommended doing so—rendered the denial unreasonable, resulting in the case being remanded to MetLife to properly reconsider the claim.
Warden v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
In Warden v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 574 F. Supp. 2d 838 (M.D. Tenn. 2008), the plaintiff challenged MetLife’s termination of his long-term disability benefits after two years, which the insurer based on a policy exception limiting benefits for neuromusculoskeletal and soft tissue disorders unless objective evidence of radiculopathy was provided. Despite extensive medical evidence from the plaintiff’s treating physicians—including an EMG confirming radiculopathy, a diagnosis of nerve root compression, and a resulting spinal surgery—MetLife upheld its denial by relying on a peer file reviewer who claimed there was insufficient objective evidence of a disabling radiculopathy. Although MetLife’s file reviewer suggested further testing (such as repeated EMG and nerve conduction studies) to fully evaluate the condition, MetLife never requested these tests and later ignored subsequent favorable findings from an examining neurosurgeon. Because the long-term disability plan granted MetLife discretion over eligibility, the court evaluated the denial under the arbitrary and capricious standard, while counsel argued for stricter scrutiny due to MetLife’s inherent conflict of interest as both the evaluator and payor of the claims.
Why Metropolitan Life’s Claim Practices Matter to Your Case
A MetLife denial is not just a disagreement. It is a written decision that becomes the framework for everything that comes next. If you do not respond the right way, MetLife can keep relying on the same arguments through the rest of the claim.
In many ERISA governed disability cases, the administrative appeal is often the best opportunity to submit the medical and vocational proof that will largely control what a court reviews later. That means the appeal is where you build the record that proves disability under the exact policy definition.
If the record is thin, MetLife has room to argue the file does not support restrictions, that your symptoms are subjective, or that you can perform work based on a simplified job description. If the record is complete and job specific, MetLife has to confront the real medical facts and the real demands of your occupation.
That is why we focus on building a clear, organized appeal record that ties together diagnosis, treatment course, symptoms over time, functional restrictions, medication effects, and occupational requirements, so MetLife has less room to defend a denial by relying on a narrow or incomplete view of the record.
Financial Pressure on Claim Decision Makers
On many employer sponsored disability plans, MetLife serves as the claim administrator that evaluates and decides disability claims. In some plans, MetLife also funds the benefits it is deciding. Even when MetLife is not the entity paying benefits, claim administration can still involve incentives that favor limiting long term payouts.
Courts recognize that a structural conflict exists when the same entity both decides eligibility for benefits and pays those benefits. That conflict is one factor courts may consider when evaluating whether the claim received a full and fair review. That concern can be heightened when a denial relies on record only reviews, a narrow reading of the file, or vocational assumptions that do not match the claimant’s actual occupation.
This is why building a complete medical and vocational record matters so much in a MetLife case. A thorough appeal record requires MetLife to address the full proof of disability and leaves less room to justify a denial through shortcuts, shifting explanations, or narrow interpretations that are not supported by the record.
See Our Happy Client Reviews
How We Approach Metlife Disability Claims
We start with the policy language and the denial reason. MetLife cases often turn on definitions. Own occupation versus any occupation. How disability is measured. What exclusions and limitations apply. What ongoing proof the policy requires. We map the denial to the exact policy requirements, then build a plan to address the reasons given in the denial.
We build the medical story so it survives record only review tactics. MetLife may rely on doctors who review the file instead of examining the claimant. We organize the evidence so it is clear, consistent, and hard to dismiss. That includes treating physician support that connects diagnosis, symptoms, treatment course, and functional restrictions, plus documentation of symptom variability, medication side effects, and the ability to sustain work across a full week.
We build vocational proof tied to your real job. MetLife denials may rely on simplifying an occupation into a generic job title. We document what your work actually required and connect those demands to specific limitations. For many professionals, the issue is not whether you can do tasks occasionally. It is whether you can meet the pace, reliability, cognitive load, and stamina your job required day after day.
We treat the appeal like litigation is coming. In many ERISA cases, the administrative record largely controls what a court will review later. That is why we focus on building a complete record during the claim and appeal process, with key documents, functional limitations, and vocational points supported and explained in writing.
We address common pressure points head on. That includes selective reading of the record, surveillance interpretation, credibility arguments about subjective symptoms, and the claim that a lack of certain testing defeats the claim. Our goal is to make MetLife respond to the full record rather than a narrow snapshot.
Our Role As Advocates
Eric Buchanan & Associates helps people challenge MetLife disability denials by building strong administrative records and presenting clear, policy based arguments designed to secure a full and fair review. We focus on key details that MetLife decisions can turn on, including the exact policy definition of disability, the medical support needed to prove functional limits, and the occupational evidence that shows what your job actually required.
We also protect your case from common traps that weaken ERISA claims, including vague treating statements, incomplete records, and vocational assumptions based on generic job titles. Our goal is to make the record clear enough that MetLife has less room to deny the claim by isolating a few notes or relying on record only reviews.
If MetLife upholds the denial after appeal, we are prepared to take the case to federal court and pursue the benefits due under the policy.
Contact Us Today!
You don’t have to deal with the insurance company alone. If your claim was denied, delayed, or handled unfairly, our team is ready to review your case and help you understand your next steps. Call: (877) 634-2506