Jump to Navigation

Wilmington Lawyers For LTD Denials And Appeals

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, we help clients get the disability benefits they need and deserve. Whether you purchased a group policy through your employer or a private plan on your own, you have paid for the benefits which you now need. You should not have to fight with the insurance company, rather you should be focusing on the changes in your life due to a disability.

Assisting Clients Throughout Delaware

Our firm will help you keep the focus where it should be. Our lawyers have the knowledge and experience to navigate all disability cases involving denials and appeals. We recognize the common challenges in disability cases and are dedicated to pursuing what is fair and right. Located in Wilmington, we fight for the rights of Delaware clients throughout the area.

If you are seeking an attorney, most likely your disability benefits claim was denied. You may be confused, angered and concerned about whether you will get the benefits to support yourself and your family. Your instinct to get help is right. With more than 19 years of experience, we routinely guide clients through the tricky administrative process of appealing a denial or filing a disability lawsuit.

Depending on the type of disability benefit policy you have, your claim may fall under the federal ERISA laws (Employment Retirement Income Security Act). Appealing a disability denial is complicated, and mistakes can be costly. Failing to get the right kind of medical information into the claim file can be devastating, as there is no admission of additional evidence and medical records further in the process.

Contact Our Delaware Long-Term Disability Attorneys

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, our team is here to support you. Contact us at 302-529-0121 to arrange an in-person meeting. Our office is conveniently located in the suburbs just outside the city of Wilmington.

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Review Us