If your short-term disability or long-term disability claim was denied and your coverage came through your job, ERISA almost certainly controls what happens next—and that changes everything. An ERISA disability claim denial lawyer in New York City handles these cases under a completely different legal framework than any other insurance dispute. Federal rules. Federal court. A closed administrative record that locks in place the moment your appeal window shuts.
That window is 180 days from the denial letter. One appeal. No do-overs.
File it wrong—without the right medical evidence, without addressing every specific ground the insurer stated—and the record you build is the record a federal judge sees. Nothing gets added later. Our ERISA disability claim denial attorneys in New York City have worked these cases from initial claim through federal litigation at 500 Pearl Street. If Cigna, Unum, Lincoln Financial, Hartford, MetLife, Sun Life, Prudential, or any other carrier administering your employer’s plan just denied you, call before you respond to anything.
ERISA stands for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a federal law passed by Congress in 1974. It was originally designed to protect workers’ retirement savings from mismanagement, but it also governs most employee benefit plans offered by private sector employers—including short-term disability, long-term disability, health insurance, and life insurance plans. If your disability coverage came through your job, ERISA almost certainly controls your claim.
The law sets the rules for how insurers must handle claims, what notice they must give when denying benefits, and what rights you have to appeal. It also determines where disputes get resolved—federal court, not state court—and limits what you can recover even if the insurer was clearly wrong. No punitive damages. No bad faith claims. Just the benefits themselves, and sometimes attorney’s fees. That combination of strict procedures and limited remedies is what makes ERISA cases so different from ordinary insurance disputes, and why getting the administrative appeal right the first time matters so much.
Almost certainly yes, if the coverage came through your employer.
ERISA—the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—governs most employee benefit plans offered by private sector employers. Short-term or long-term disability insurance provided as a workplace benefit, administered through HR, or paid through payroll deductions is almost always an ERISA plan. Doesn’t matter whether you work at a law firm in the Financial District, a hospital off York Avenue on the Upper East Side, or a production company in Hudson Square. Coverage that came with the job is coverage ERISA controls.
Government employees are generally carved out. Church plans typically are too. Individual policies you bought on your own—not through work—fall under New York state insurance law instead.
Why does the distinction matter so much? Because ERISA takes away rights that exist under state law. In a standard New York insurance dispute, you can sue the carrier for bad faith and recover damages beyond the benefits owed. Under ERISA, that option is gone. You’re limited to the benefits themselves and, sometimes, attorneys’ fees. The insurer faces less financial exposure for wrongful denials under ERISA than it would under state law. That asymmetry isn’t an accident. It’s built into the statute. And it’s one reason carriers deny ERISA claims at rates that would be legally untenable under a state insurance framework.
Because denying is cheaper than paying, and ERISA makes it easier to get away with.
That is the honest answer. Here’s what that looks like in practice. Our ERISA disability claim denial lawyers see the same tactics repeatedly, from the same carriers, applied to legitimately disabled workers across New York City:
One hundred eighty days from when you received the denial letter. That is the federal regulatory floor under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1(h)(3)(i). Most plans follow it. Some allow longer. None are permitted to go shorter.
The clock runs from receipt, not from the date printed on the letter. Courts generally presume receipt within five calendar days of mailing. Some carriers try to count from the letter date itself—that’s wrong under the regulations, and our ERISA disability claim denial attorneys will push back on it.
Here’s why 180 days goes faster than it sounds. First move after a denial: request the complete claim file. The insurer has 30 days to produce it. That file runs hundreds of pages—sometimes thousands. It contains the denial rationale, the internal medical reviews, surveillance footage if any exists, every internal note the claims handler wrote, and any vocational reports. Read all of it. An appeal written without reading the file is a response to something you don’t fully understand yet.
Then the actual build starts. Additional medical evidence tied to your specific job requirements. Functional capacity evaluations. Physician statements that go beyond diagnosis and describe what you cannot do and why. Vocational analysis rebutting any occupation arguments. Legal arguments identifying every procedural violation by the carrier. Everything goes in before the window closes.
Because when it closes, that’s the record. A federal judge at 500 Pearl Street in Lower Manhattan reviews that file. Nothing outside it. If the most important piece of evidence arrives one day late, the court almost certainly never sees it. This is the reason our attorneys get involved before an appeal is drafted, not after one fails.
Most claimants don’t hear about this until it’s too late. Then it determines everything.
When an ERISA plan grants the insurer discretion to interpret plan terms and determine eligibility—and most plans do—a federal court reviewing a denial applies the arbitrary and capricious standard. The court doesn’t ask whether you’re actually disabled. It asks only whether the insurer’s decision was completely unreasonable. That’s a narrow question with a high bar.
A judge can read your medical records, find them persuasive, and still uphold the denial if the carrier had any plausible basis for its decision. The insurer’s paid reviewer’s opinion—even a brief, selective paper review—may be sufficient to survive challenge under that standard. It feels backwards. It is backwards. But it’s the law as applied in the Second Circuit, and ignoring it doesn’t change it.
The exception matters. When an insurer failed to comply with ERISA’s procedural requirements—missed deadlines, improper notice, failure to produce documents—courts have applied de novo review instead. De novo means the judge decides the question fresh, with no deference to the insurer’s prior determination. That’s a fundamentally different case, with fundamentally better odds.
Our ERISA disability claim denial lawyers look for these violations in every file, because finding one can shift the entire legal framework from nearly impossible to genuinely contested.
Any worker covered under an employer-sponsored ERISA plan whose disability benefits were denied, terminated, or reduced without legitimate basis.
That’s a wide range of situations. Workers whose initial applications were rejected outright—the insurer cited missing evidence or a pre-existing condition clause and sent back a denial letter before paying a single week of benefits. Workers whose benefits were running and then got cut off, often precisely at the 24-month mark when the definition of disability shifts. Workers told they’re partially disabled and handed a reduced benefit that doesn’t reflect their actual condition. Workers who tried returning to a job, couldn’t sustain it, and then watched the carrier use that attempt as grounds to say the disability was never real.
Pre-existing condition exclusion overreach is its own category worth naming. The policy language controls the scope of that exclusion—not the insurer’s preferred interpretation of it. When a carrier stretches the exclusion past what the words actually say, that’s a challengeable denial, and our ERISA disability attorneys challenge it.
Our ERISA disability claim denial attorneys handle every stage, from appeal preparation through federal court:
ERISA restricts remedies more than New York state law does. That’s a real limitation worth naming honestly. Punitive damages aren’t available. Damages for emotional distress aren’t available, even when the denial was clearly unreasonable. These restrictions are among the most criticized features of the statute.
What is available, and what our ERISA disability claim denial attorneys pursue in every case:
The remedial limitations under ERISA are exactly why winning at the administrative appeal level—before the case ever reaches a federal courthouse—is so important. An insurer that reverses a denial on appeal pays the benefits. One that loses at trial in the Southern District pays the same benefits, plus attorney’s fees in some cases, after years of litigation. Our goal is resolution at the administrative level when the record supports it, and aggressive federal litigation when it doesn’t.
The insurer already made their decision. They have the claim file, their reviewers’ reports, and attorneys who handle ERISA denials every single day. Showing up with a letter saying the denial was wrong isn’t an appeal. It’s noise.
We start with the claim file. All of it.
Every internal note the claims handler wrote. Every medical reviewer’s report, including the credentials of the reviewer and whether they ever examined you. Every piece of surveillance footage. Every vocational analysis. Every procedural deadline the carrier hit or missed. That file is the map. The appeal is built from it.
What that process actually involves:
No upfront costs. Our ERISA disability claim denial lawyers work on contingency. Nothing owed unless we recover.
The denial letter is sitting on your table. The 180-day window started the day it arrived.
Call Seelig Law Offices today. Read the file before you respond to anything.
© 2026 Seelig Law Offices • All rights reserved.
Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy
Attorney Advertising | Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.