ARTICLES BY MARK DEBOFSKY

These articles by Mark DeBofsky have appeared in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin:

• A ruling that could protect thousands of claimants (July 26, 2010);

• The standard of review can affect application of offsets (July 12, 2010);

• Accidental death benefits to survivors of drunken drivers (June 21, 2010);

• Considering a 'prevailing party' requirement (June 7, 2010);

• Comparing an ERISA benefit to a payroll practice (May 17, 2010);

• Do complaints of debilitating pain result in disability? (May 3, 2010);

• Courts face challenges with ERISA, limitations period (April 19, 2010);

• How the courts address 'legal' disabilities (April 5, 2010);

• Court looks at deficiencies in determining disability (March 15, 2010);

• How CIGNA handles or mishandles disability claims (March 1, 2010);

• Who gets the last word in an ERISA claim appeal? (February 16, 2010);

• A split in the circuits exists for ERISA benefit disputes (February 1, 2010);

• Courts deal with issue of ERISA attorney fees (January 18, 2010);

• ERISA: A Frankenstein made up of different laws (January 4, 2010);

• Applying deferential standard of review in evaluating claims (December 21, 2009);

• Get to the truth on the matter (November 30, 2009);

• Court revisits difficult issue of 'total disability' (November 16, 2009);

• Battle over standard of review likely to continue (November 2, 2009);

• When a literal reading can be overridden (October 19, 2009);

• 9th Circuit ruling provides greater protection of benefits (October 5, 2009);

• Clarity needed on contractual periods of limitation (September 21, 2009);

• Ruling Clarifies Contractual Limitations Periods (August 1, 2009);

• Payment delays merely encourage denials (August 3, 2009);

• Claims require an 'independent decision,' not a 'review' (July 6, 2009);

• Efficiency, expediency need to give way to fairness (June 29, 2009);

• Ruling provides thoughtful primer on discovery (June 15, 2009);

• Claim decisions must be reasonable and accurate (June 1, 2009);

• Ruling affirms Glenn's impact on standard of review (May 18, 2009);

• Settlement did not justify vacatur: U.S. court (May 4, 2009);

• De novo review is not a rubber stamp (April 20, 2009); 

• Discretionary clauses under heavy fire (April 6, 2009);

• Ruling shows courts must take more responsibility (March 23, 2009);

• Ruling exposes defects in insurer's determination (March 16, 2009);

• Consider this before wrongfully denying a claim (March 2, 2009);

• Court right to look at big picture in benefits case (February 2, 2009);

• Ruling outlines scope of review in ERISA case (January 19, 2009);

• Ruling puts Glenn decision to work (December 29, 2008);

• Insurer functioned as administrator: court (December 15, 2008);

• Ruling an indictment of Unum's operations (December 1, 2008);

• An end to lenient regime of claim reviews (November 24, 2008);

• Court finds conflict in review of claim (November 3, 2008);

• Claimant not required to exhaust issues (October 13, 2008);

• Insurer's own guidelines dismissed as not binding (October 6, 2008);

• Court rethinks its approach after Glenn ruling (September 22, 2008);

• Appeals court clarifies factors for fee awards (September 8, 2008);

• Judge sees importance of discovery ruling (August 18, 2008);

• Ruling underscores value of treating doctor's opinion (August 4, 2008);

• Bankruptcy Omission Led to Estoppel (July 21, 2008);

• Ruling means end for lenient regime of reviews (June 23, 2008);

• Ruling shows problems with review system (June 9, 2008);

• Offset ruling beneficial to claimants (May 19, 2008);

• Court prevents review of doctor's report (April 28, 2008);

• The year in employee benefits (April 26, 2008);

• Court finds conflict in insurer, reviewer relationship (April 14, 2008);

• Struggle over 'mental illness' exclusions (March 31, 2008);

• Court Nixes Insurer Offset for Dependent SSA Benefits (March 17, 2008);

• Rulings uphold State power over review clauses (March 3, 2008);

• A Painful Burden For Disability Claimants (February 11, 2008);

• 10th Circuit sticks to 'review proceeding' (January 28, 2008);

• Occupation review should look into the past (January 21, 2008);

• Wrongly used standard can deny worthy benefits (January 7, 2008);

• Examining the nature of illness and injury (November 26, 2007);

• Credibility should have been the issue in review (November 12, 2007);

• Benefit plan took the necessary steps (October 29, 2007);

• Court refuses to rubber-stamp denial (October 15, 2007);

• Line between 'job' and 'occupation' (October 1, 2007);

• 7th Circuit Ruling puts ERISA litigation back on track (September 17, 2007);

• Ruling restores some balance to ERISA cases (August 13, 2007);

• Unfair ruling against reasoning behind ERISA (July 16, 2007);

• Insured's silence not enough (July 2, 2007);

• No reason to deny jury trials for ERISA claims (June 18, 2007);

• Insurance adjuster wins bid for disability benefits (June 4, 2007);

• Big Step Toward Clearing Up ERISA Litigation (April 30, 2007);

• Is expediency more important than accuracy? (April 2, 2007);

• Ruling on scope, standard of review disturbing (March 19, 2007);

• Right result, but confusing reasoning (March 5, 2007);

• Insurer can't 'cherry pick' medical report (February 12, 2007);

• Insurer can't keep manual from claimant (January 29, 2007);

• Work ability more than just physical (January 15, 2007);

• Opinion aberrational on work definition (December 18, 2006);

• Standard of review didn't prevent reversal (November 27, 2006);

• Oversights led to offsets for veteran's benefits (November 13, 2006);

• Court misunderstands definitions (October 16, 2006);

• Court issues important case on attorney fees (October 2, 2006);

• Judge has neither love nor mercy for ERISA (September 20, 2006);

• Where Social Security, insurance meet (August 28, 2006);

• Court misses the mark on disability (August 14, 2006);

• Ruling gives benefits, but not lawyer fees (July 24, 2006);

• Court tries to end discretion debate (July 5, 2006);

• Remand Didn't Help Where Plan Was At Fault (June 27, 2006);

• Decision begins to explain problems with ERISA litigation (June 12, 2006);

• Attorney's fees not enough to deter bad denials (May 30, 2006);

• Benefit payment decisions should not be left up to the Insurers (May 16, 2006);

• Conflicted over conflicts of interest (May 15, 2006);

• Case shows it's not 'all or none' for disability (May 1, 2006);

• Court tackles 'church plan,' 'self-reporting' case (April 3, 2006);

• Court too quick to allow in report (March 20, 2006);

• Courts differ over weighing pain credibility (February 27, 2006);

• Insurers not living up to ERISA duties (February 14, 2006);

• Court finds employee was 'totally disabled' (January 23, 2006);

• Documents ruling cuts access to courts  (January 9, 2006);

• Court: Judgment Stays on the Books (December 27, 2005);

• Another Court Questions Impartiality of Doctor (December 5, 2005);

• Claimant denied fair chance to continue benefits (November 21, 2005);

• Court applies common sense to ERISA (November 7, 2005);

• Death apparently not enough to prove disability (October 18, 2005);

• Judgment an incentive for careful claims review (September 19, 2005);

• Law trying to get head around 'mental illness' (August 29, 2005);

• Standard of review in ERISA cases 'too deferential' (August 1, 2005);

• Social Security case buttresses benefits claim (July 18, 2005);

• Appeals court rejects ruling on 'tardy' review (June 27, 2005);

• 1st Circuit Overlooks Crucial ERISA Distinction (June 20, 2005);

• Why Remanding ERISA cases verges on absurd (May 23, 2005);

• Changed Definition Halts Disability Benefits (May 2, 2005);

• Deferential, yes, but certainly not inconsequential (April 18, 2005);

• Social Security findings should play key role (March 22, 2005);

• ERISA ruling sounds warning on nasty tactics (March 8, 2005);

• Chronic pain and disability claims (February 23, 2005);

• Ruling warns against failure to communicate (February 9, 2005);

• Judge questions distinction set for types of illness (January 17, 2005);

• Judge takes aim at disability insurers, ERISA (January 3, 2005);

• 4th Circuit joins chorus in questioning tactics  (December 20, 2004);

• Fifth Circuit stands alone on degree of disability (December 1, 2004);

• Erring on ERISA by looking for common sense (November 17, 2004);

• Turning up the power of the lens raises the heat (November 5, 2004);

• Ruling undercuts ERISA promise of protection (October 20, 2004);

• Cherry-picking info has its pitfalls (October 4, 2004);

• Disability claims will falter without specifics (September 8, 2004);

• Pre-existing conditions: symptoms versus diagnosis (August 16, 2004);

• Defining 'disability' means looking at duties (July 14, 2004);

• Courts Seek Clarity on Subjective Diseases (June 18, 2004);

and Mark also wrote an article that was published in the John Marshall Law Review: The Paradox of the Misuse of Administrative Law in ERISA Benefit Claims.

Also by Mark D. DeBofsky:

What Every Dentist Needs to Know About ERISA, 40 Hawaii Dental Journal 12 (2009). 

Disability benefits adjudications: Attorneys representing disability claimants, Chapter 38 in Neuropsychology of Malingering Casebook, 476 (Joel E. Morgan & Jerry J. Sweet eds. 2008).

Mediating in the Appellate Court

What process is due in the adjudication of ERISA claims?

Disability Insurance Under the ERISA Law: Economic Security or Litigation Nightmare?

What Every Physician Needs to Know About Disability Insurance

ERISA, The ADA and Insurance—What is Your Client Entitled To?

Bringing an ERISA Claim: A Step-By-Step Guide

Legal Aspects of Disability -- paper presented at the Midwest Pain Society conference (September 9, 2005)

Mark DeBofsky contributed Chapter 10, "The Failure of ERISA's Promise" to Henry H. Perritt, Jr.'s Employment Law Update (Aspen Publishers 2006).

Mark DeBofsky testified before the Health and Welfare Communications Working Group on July 7, 2005 in Washington, D.C. For information on the scope of the Working Group, please click here.  Also available is the schedule of witnesses that appeared, Mark's testimony, and the committee's summary/recommendations. 

An article by Mark DeBofsky, The Disability Insurance Industry’s Attack on California’s Consumer Protection Initiative, recently appeared in the The Insurance Forum, Vol. 33, Nos. 2 & 3, 16 (February/March 2006).