posted September 9, 2002
The former medical director at UnumProvident who sued the insurance firm alleging that medical personnel were encouraged to deny disability claims was quizzed by a group of attorneys for three days last week.
Attorneys from across the country had wanted to interview Dr. Patrick Fergal McSharry after he brought the complaint asking compensatory and punitive damages in Hamilton County Circuit Court. The case was later transferred to Federal Court.
Attorney Harry Burnette said he had received over 60 inquiries from lawyers around the country wanting to take the deposition of Dr. McSharry.
Numerous attorneys put down subpoenas asking for the McSharry testimony.
Both UnumProvident and Dr. McSharry objected to the mass depositions.
Dr. McSharry said he had taken a new position and could not afford to be away from his new employment for a lengthy time.
Magistrate Bill Carter said in a court memorandum, "Apparently, there are a number of individuals across the country who have been denied benefits under a disability insurance policy purchased from UnumProvident or one of its affiliates and/or administered by UnumProvident who now have lawsuits pending against UnumProvident and/or its affiliates arising from the denial of disability benefits."
Magistrate Carter ruled that Dr. McSharry would not have to respond to all the requests for depositions. He said, "Requiring Dr. McSharry to be deposed multiple times on the same subject is unacceptable."
He ruled that Dr. McSharry would be quizzed about six different cases in one consolidated deposition. It took place in Chattanooga last Wednesday-Friday. UnumProvident was to be represented by four attorneys.
Magistrate Carter said judges in other jurisdictions could decide later whether or not to allow the deposition testimony.
He would not allow the media at the depositions and said the depositions could not be broadcast over the Internet.
He gave the plaintiffs a day and a half to interview Dr. McSharry, and gave UnumProvident the same time.
Dr. McSharry in his suit said he was one of several medical advisors employed by UnumProvident "purportedly to enable it to make valid judgments regarding the disability status of the various claimants."
The suit says, "Although defendant employed various medical doctors for the ostensible purpose of providing needed medical guidance in reaching benefit decisions, the medical personnel were not truly utilized for that purpose.
"It was defendant's primary purpose and policy to deny disability claims. The medical advisors were only to be used to provide language and conclusions supporting denial of claims."
He said medical doctors "were supposed to handle a number of files a day, precluding meaningful analysis."
The suit says, "The medical doctors were encouraged to use language in their reports that could be used to support denials. If reports were unsatisfactory to that end, the doctors were asked to delete and reword phrases so as not to compromise a denial.
"Medical doctors were not allowed to ask for further information or to suggest further tests; rather their reviews were supposed to 'stand on the record.' The medical doctors were not supposed to help a claimant 'perfect' a claim."
The suit says, "It was further defendant's practice and policy to evaluate every medical condition of a claimant in isolation and to render a disability decision on the effects of each isolated condition rather than to consider the restrictions of each condition in conjunction with those of other medical conditions.
"Defendant expected the medical advisor to render opinions on conditions outside his or her specialty rather than to refer the file to a specialist in the field. It also required the non-specialist to support his training in the particular specialty even where the support required falsification.
"Although an appeal of a denial is supposed to be reviewed independently and de novo, it is defendant's practice to rely on the original evaluation of the case."
The plaintiff said in his first five months at UnumProvident he "tried to work out his ethical dilemma with defendant's practices and his role in them by walking a careful line, trying to follow defendant's express rules while still rendering truthful reports.
"There came a point in time, however, when plaintiff realized he could not maintain his own integrity or contribute integrity to the company as long as he attempted to follow certain rules.
"At that point, plaintiff let his supervisors know that he would no longer be a part of unethical and illegal practices in the determination of disability benefits."
The suit claims the firm's practices were "illegal" in several different ways.
The plaintiff said, after he began writing reports "accurately" that he suffered retaliation. "He endured verbal and written write-ups and warnings. He was subjected to constant criticism and ostracism. His work was routed around him.
"Plaintiff refused to yield to defendant's coercive tactics and also refused to remain silent about the illegalities of defendant's practices when talking with other medical personnel."
The suit says he was fired in January for "disruptive behavior."
Attorney Anita B. Hardeman, who is a partner with attorney Burnette, filed the suit.
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |