X hits on this document





5 / 19

not be able to return to work and we will more than likely have to place her on permanent disability.”

Delta followed up with Dr. Petti and sent him the same type of questionnaire

previously sent to Dr. Maser that had caused the initial confusion regarding Ms. Wolf’s

disability status. Dr. Petti wrote “yes” next to a question asking if Ms. Wolf could

perform some type of work14. Delta never followed up on this information to ask him

what duties or work she was capable of performing, instead taking this information at

face value and assuming it meant that Ms. Wolf was no longer disabled under the terms

of the Plan.

Based solely on this one word response and not taking into consideration, or even

acknowledging Dr. Maser’s report, Delta upheld the denial of benefits to Ms. Wolf15.

Ms. Wolf, through her attorney, asked for a review of this appeal16. In response, Delta

refused to reverse its previous decision because Dr. Maser had stated that Ms. Wolf was

disabled from her own occupation only17. Delta also noted that Dr. Maser had not

submitted any objective evidence of disability. Dr. Maser never addressed whether she

was disabled from any occupation, but did specifically state that she was only capable of

½ hour of keyboard work before she would experience pain. Delta interpreted this to

mean that Ms. Wolf was not disabled under the terms of the Plan. Ms. Wolf’s attorney

asked that Delta reconsider its decision18.

Delta received a work capacities assessment summary report19 dated July 25,

1995 which stated, in part:

14 15 16 17 18 19

The July 20, 1995 form is attached as The August 8, 1995 denial letter is attached as The August 23, 1995 letter is attached as




The September 15, 1995 letter including Dr. Maser’s report is attached as composite

The October 16, 1995 letter is attached as


The report is attached as




Document info
Document views18
Page views18
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 15:37:26 UTC 2016