Unum’s Denial of LTD Benefits for CBS News Producer with Long COVID Survives Summary Judgment — But So Does Her Claim

A federal district court in the Southern District of New York denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment in DelValle v. Unum Group Corp., First Unum Life Insurance Company, No. 22-CV-07717-LTS, 2026 WL 878595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2026), a long-term disability dispute involving a former investigative news producer who stopped working after contracting COVID-19 and developing debilitating long-haul symptoms. The court found that competing medical opinions on the plaintiff’s functional capacity during the plan’s Elimination Period created genuine issues of material fact that could not be resolved at the summary judgment stage. The court also dismissed the parent company, Unum Group Corp., as an improper defendant, leaving First Unum Life Insurance Company as the sole remaining defendant heading toward trial or further proceedings.

The Plan and the Plaintiff’s Claim

The case arises under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). The plaintiff was a participant in CBS’s employee benefit plan, which provided both short-term and long-term disability coverage. The plan defined disability during the first twenty-four months as the inability to perform the material and substantial duties of one’s regular occupation with a twenty percent or greater loss in indexed monthly earnings. After twenty-four months, the standard shifted to an inability to perform any gainful occupation for which the claimant was reasonably fitted by education, training, or experience. The plan’s Elimination Period — defined as the later of 180 days following disability onset or the date short-term benefits ended — ran from March 15, 2021, to September 12, 2021.

The plaintiff contracted COVID-19 in December 2020 and was hospitalized. After returning to work briefly, she reported persistent symptoms including headaches, muscle aches, joint pain, brain fog, and gastrointestinal distress. Her primary care provider diagnosed her as a COVID-19 long hauler, and she stopped working on March 15, 2021. She received twenty-six weeks of short-term disability benefits before Unum began evaluating her for long-term disability coverage.

Unum’s Denial and the Appeal

Unum denied the LTD claim in October 2021. Its reviewing physicians — Drs. Kirsch and Gross — concluded that the plaintiff’s reported symptoms were inconsistent with physical examination findings and diagnostic test results, and that the medical evidence did not support functional limitations sufficient to prevent her from performing the demands of her light-duty occupation as an investigative news producer during the Elimination Period.

The plaintiff timely appealed in April 2022, submitting an extensive array of new medical evidence. A cardiologist, Dr. Polizzi, diagnosed post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, dysfunctional autonomic nervous system, and Mast Cell activation syndrome, and opined that the plaintiff could not lift more than five pounds and would require four to six hours of rest during an eight-hour workday. A gastroenterologist, Dr. Kwah, identified gastroparesis and IBS-D as contributing to her functional limitations. A neuro-ophthalmologist, Dr. Warren, documented visual field defects and light sensitivity. Her physical therapist and a vocational rehabilitation expert, Dr. Hankins, opined that the combination of expected absences, unscheduled breaks, and cognitive lapses would prevent the plaintiff from sustaining full-time gainful activity. Unum referred the appeal evidence to Nurse Yeaton and Dr. Norris, both of whom concluded that the medical record did not support functional impairment sufficient to preclude light occupational activity during the Elimination Period. Unum upheld the denial on August 4, 2022.

The Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing that de novo review applied because the plan did not vest discretionary authority in the administrator. Under de novo review, the court considers all aspects of the denial independently without deference to the plan administrator’s findings.

The court identified two central legal questions on cross-motion. First, it addressed Unum’s argument that medical evidence generated after the Elimination Period was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court rejected that position. Drawing on established Second Circuit authority, the court reaffirmed that the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence does not preclude a finding of disability, and that a plaintiff may establish continuous disability through evidence from before and after the relevant period. The plaintiff’s treating physicians consistently traced her functional limitations back to her December 2020 COVID-19 illness and did not suggest that her impairments arose only at the time of their examinations. At the summary judgment stage, factual inferences must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party, and the court declined to discount the post-Elimination Period opinions as irrelevant as a matter of law.

Second, the court addressed the plaintiff’s argument that Unum’s reviewing physician, Dr. Norris, should be disregarded entirely based on prior judicial criticism of his opinions in other cases. The court declined to make that credibility determination at the summary judgment stage, holding that such an assessment is the province of a fact-finder at trial, not a court deciding a motion for summary judgment. The existence of competing medical opinions — none of which was unreliable as a matter of law — precluded summary judgment in either party’s favor on the LTD benefits claim.

Unum Group Corp. Dismissed as Improper Defendant

The court granted summary judgment in one narrow respect. Unum Group Corp., the parent corporation of First Unum Life Insurance Company, was dismissed as an improper party. Because Unum Group Corp. is not an insurer and has no privity of contract with the plaintiff, and because the plaintiff failed to address the argument in her briefing, the court found she had forfeited any counterargument. The case proceeds against First Unum Life Insurance Company only.

Takeaways for Long COVID and Complex Multi-System Disability Claims

The decision carries useful lessons for long COVID and other complex multi-system disability claims. Courts will not categorically exclude post-Elimination Period medical evidence at the summary judgment stage, particularly where the treating record traces the plaintiff’s ongoing limitations to a documented onset date. Claimants building a record for litigation should ensure that their physicians’ opinions address the full arc of the disability — connecting current findings and functional assessments back to the date disability began — rather than speaking only to present-day impairment. The court’s refusal to wholesale discredit an insurer’s paper reviewer at summary judgment is also a reminder that credibility battles over competing expert opinions are won at trial, not on motion.