Lincoln’s Unfair Denials of Disability Benefits: What Recent Court Cases Reveal

If your long-term disability (LTD) claim with Lincoln National Life Insurance Company or Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston has been denied, you are not alone. Across the country, courts have repeatedly called out Lincoln for mishandling disability claims, ignoring medical evidence, and using tactics that undermine claimants’ rights. Three recent federal cases — Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Boston, Turkoly v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Co., and Quezada v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Boston — illustrate patterns that every claimant should know.

1. Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston

In Collier, the Ninth Circuit reversed Lincoln’s denial of benefits because both Lincoln and the district court violated the claimant’s statutory right to a “full and fair review” under ERISA. Collier, an insurance sales agent, suffered severe neck, shoulder, and back pain that limited her ability to type and work. Lincoln denied her claim based on a reviewing doctor’s file-only opinion, ignoring her treating physicians and a functional capacity evaluation showing she could not sustain full-time work.

When Collier appealed internally, Lincoln stuck to its original reasoning and did not claim she was “not credible” or lacked “objective evidence”. However, once she sued, Lincoln raised these new arguments — and the district court adopted them. The Ninth Circuit held this was improper, explaining that ERISA forbids insurers from “sandbagging” claimants with new denial reasons in court that were never disclosed during the administrative process. The case was sent back so the district court could reconsider based solely on the reasons Lincoln actually gave during its review.

Takeaway: Lincoln cannot save new arguments for court. If they denied your claim for one reason, they cannot later invent new justifications to defend that decision.

2. Turkoly v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company

In Turkoly, a federal court found that Lincoln’s denial of benefits to a former financial advisor with multiple sclerosis was arbitrary and capricious. The claimant, Ms. Turkoly, had been approved for LTD benefits for years before Lincoln abruptly terminated them, citing an in-house medical review that claimed she could perform sedentary work.

The court noted that Lincoln relied heavily on non-examining doctors, dismissed the opinions of her treating neurologist, and failed to reconcile its decision with her Social Security Disability award, which found her totally disabled. Lincoln also disregarded consistent medical evidence of fatigue, cognitive slowing, and pain — symptoms typical of MS that are often not visible on objective imaging.

Ultimately, the court reinstated her benefits, finding Lincoln’s selective review and failure to address contrary evidence violated ERISA’s requirement for a reasoned and principled claims process.

Takeaway: Courts expect insurers like Lincoln to explain why they reject strong medical evidence, especially when it comes from treating specialists or is consistent with a Social Security decision.

3. Quezada v. Lincoln Life Assurance Company of Boston

In Quezada, Lincoln denied LTD benefits to a hospital administrative worker with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy, despite extensive medical documentation and functional restrictions from her doctors. Lincoln’s reviewing physician downplayed her pain and physical limitations, concluding she could still perform her “own occupation” — even though the vocational analysis did not accurately reflect the actual demands of her job.

The court found that Lincoln’s evaluation was flawed because it relied on generic job descriptions instead of the real-world requirements of the claimant’s position, ignored consistent reports of pain, and failed to meaningfully address evidence that she could not perform prolonged sitting or standing. The decision was overturned, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Takeaway: Lincoln often uses overly broad or inaccurate job descriptions to argue claimants can work, sidestepping the actual duties and demands they face.

Patterns in Lincoln’s Denials

These cases highlight troubling themes in Lincoln’s handling of disability claims:

• File-only medical reviews: Lincoln often relies on doctors who never examine the claimant in person.
• Ignoring treating physicians: The opinions of long-time treating doctors are frequently discounted or dismissed without adequate explanation.
• Late-stage rationale changes: As in Collier, Lincoln sometimes changes its reasons for denial after a lawsuit is filed — a practice courts reject.
• Vocational overreach: Lincoln may misclassify your “own occupation” to fit its denial narrative.
• Failure to reconcile with Social Security awards: Lincoln often ignores the fact that the federal government has already found you disabled.

What You Can Do if Lincoln Denies Your Claim

If you’ve been denied, the ERISA claims and appeal process is complex and time-sensitive. You have the right to:

1. Receive the specific reasons for Lincoln’s denial and the evidence they relied on.
2. Submit additional evidence during your internal appeal, including new medical records, vocational reports, and witness statements.
3. Challenge flawed reviews — for example, by pointing out that Lincoln’s reviewing doctor never examined you or ignored key restrictions.
4. Hold Lincoln to ERISA’s procedural safeguards, including the prohibition on new denial reasons after the administrative process.

The right legal strategy can force Lincoln to follow the law and treat your claim fairly. As Collier, Turkoly, and Quezada show, courts will overturn Lincoln’s denials when the company cuts corners, ignores evidence, or moves the goalposts.

We Can Help

Our firm has extensive experience fighting Lincoln’s wrongful disability claim denials. We know their tactics — and how to beat them. If Lincoln has denied or terminated your LTD benefits, contact us today. We’ll review your denial letter, explain your legal options, and work to protect the benefits you’ve earned.