Federal Judiciary

Harvey Has A Heart!

By Robert Loblaw

Stanford v. Continental Casualty Co., 06-2006 (4th Cir., Jan. 23, 2008)

I usually try not to bore my readers with ERISA cases, but I must make an exception for this appeal, in which Judge Wilkinson parts ways from his conservative brethren to argue that a recovering drug addict is entitled to disability benefits.

Plaintiff Robert Stanford is an anesthetist who began anesthetising himself with painkillers and quickly became addicted. Despite several rounds of treatment, Stanford kept relapsing after returning to work. Finally, with his doctor recommending that he not return to work and with his license on the line, Stanford decided to leave his job and apply for long-term disability benefits.

Although Stanford?s drug addiction fell within the definition of a mental disability covered by the plan, the administrator denied benefits, concluding that a ?potential risk of relapse? was not a disability. On appeal, a divided Fourth Circuit reluctantly affirms.

But Judge Wilkinson vehemently dissents, arguing that the majority has erred by treating a recovering drug addict differently from a recovering heart attack patient, whose potential risk of a future heart attack would qualify as a disability. He argues that the plain language of the employer?s disability policy covers situations such as Stanford, and that the majority has ?accomplished an uncommonly harsh result? in ignoring the policy language. He concludes,

My inquiry thus far has been an inquiry of law, for I think the moral opprobrium that underlies the special exclusion for drug addicts is not grounded in the language of the Plan or the evidence in this case. But if we do take up the moral issue, I believe my colleagues mistake the moral balance. Mr. Stanford is not currently taking drugs; he is trying to cease taking drugs. We should give people like him a chance to get back on their feet. To put him to the cruel choice of losing his disability benefits or returning to the environment that impelled his addiction is not right. Judge-made exceptions are often assumed to be humane, while law is thought to be a cold, hard thing. But equity here is a sword that strikes against the needy but unfavored. Law would be kinder.

Not what you?d expect from the Fourth Circuit?s poster boy, is it?

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on January 25, 2008 (boomark / email).