Court Denies Discovery in ERISA Disability Benefits Case Against Unum

In Digeronimo v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of America, et al., No. 1:22-CV-00773, 2025 WL 2459557 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2025), the Northern District of Ohio issued an opinion denying the plaintiff’s request for discovery in his ERISA long-term disability case. The ruling underscores the high bar claimants face when attempting to obtain evidence outside the administrative record in ERISA benefits disputes.

Plaintiff Digeronimo was employed by Independence Excavating and had a long medical history of epilepsy, including nocturnal seizures that disrupted his sleep and left him cognitively impaired during the day. Treating neurologist Dr. Nancy Foldvary-Schaefer of the Cleveland Clinic consistently opined that Digeronimo was unable to safely perform his work duties due to seizures, sleep deprivation, and stress.

Despite this, Unum’s reviewing physicians concluded there was insufficient evidence of functional neurological impairment. They emphasized stable neurological exams, normal cognition on testing, and the nocturnal nature of the seizures. Unum denied benefits in November 2020, and later upheld its decision on appeal in March 2022, even after receiving further medical and vocational evidence.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery

Following the benefit denial, Digeronimo sought court approval to conduct discovery, including interrogatories, document requests, and depositions of Unum’s medical and vocational reviewers. His discovery requests were broad, covering:

• Identities and qualifications of Unum reviewers, including prior involvement in other cases;
• Data on other high-value claims exceeding $8,200 per month;
• Information on Unum’s treatment of seizure-related claims;
• Compensation and bonus structures for Unum employees; and
• Resumes or CVs of reviewing physicians and vocational specialists.

Digeronimo argued discovery was necessary to explore Unum’s inherent conflict of interest as both administrator and payor, its alleged targeting of seizure disorder claims, and possible financial incentives influencing claims reviewers.

Legal Standard: Limited Discovery in ERISA Cases

ERISA generally limits judicial review to the administrative record. The Sixth Circuit recognizes a narrow exception: discovery may be permitted to support a “procedural challenge,” such as lack of due process or bias in the claims process. However, courts require a factual foundation beyond mere allegations. As the opinion emphasized, “a mere allegation of bias is insufficient to throw open the doors of discovery.”

The Court’s Analysis

Judge David Ruiz systematically rejected each of Digeronimo’s discovery requests:

1. Conflict of Interest – Although Unum’s dual role as claims administrator and payor creates an “apparent conflict,” precedent makes clear this factor alone does not justify discovery.
2. High-Value Claims – The plaintiff’s theory that Unum denied high-dollar claims more frequently was unsupported. Courts have cautioned against “batting average” discovery into approval/denial rates, which would lead to mini-trials on unrelated claims.
3. Seizure Disorder Claims – The request for seizure-claim data was likewise speculative, amounting to a fishing expedition.
4. Reviewer Bias – The court was unpersuaded by references to cases criticizing Unum physician Dr. Scott Norris’s prior opinions. Discovery into five years of unrelated claims would again require improper mini-trials.
5. Compensation Structures – While plaintiff suggested that Unum’s reviewers were incentivized to deny claims through bonus programs, the court found no evidence linking compensation to claim outcomes. Bonuses tied to company profitability alone did not establish bias.
6. Reviewer CVs – The refusal to provide reviewer resumes during the appeal process was not a legal violation and did not justify opening discovery.

In sum, the court concluded that plaintiff’s requests rested on “speculation or mere allegations without meaningful factual foundation.”

Takeaways

This decision reinforces the significant hurdles ERISA claimants face when seeking to uncover insurer bias through discovery. Even in cases involving conflicts of interest, high-value claims, or allegations of targeted denials, courts demand specific, well-supported evidence before departing from the administrative record.

For claimants, the ruling highlights the importance of building a strong medical and vocational record during the administrative process itself, as opportunities to supplement the record later through discovery are rare. For insurers, it provides reassurance that generalized accusations of bias or unfairness will not automatically open the door to broad, burdensome discovery.