Winkler v. MetLife, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 5447 (2d Cir. 2006).

Riemer & Associates has obtained a significant victory in the United States Court of Appeals on behalf of a disabled client. After a vigorous oral argument, where Scott M. Riemer persuasively argued that MetLife's denial was based on a selective review of the medical evidence, the Court of Appeals vacated MetLife's determination finding it to be arbitrary and capricious. The Court held:

"An administrator may, in exercising its discretion, weigh competing evidence, but it may not, as MetLife did here, cherry-pick the evidence it prefers while ignoring significant evidence to the contrary."

The court also found crucial errors in the way that MetLife based its decision entirely on the opinions of consulting physicians who never personally examined the claimant, while discounting the opinions of the claimant's three treating physicians. The Court held:

"MetLife's exclusive reliance on second-hand opinions adds to the overall picture of its decision as less than fair. First-hand observation is especially important in the context of assessing psychiatric disabilities."

Riemer & Associates is proud of this victory, which will send an unmistakeable message to MetLife and other disability insurance companies.