Loucka v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.

Decision Date07 November 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 1:17-cv-01375 (TNM)
Citation334 F.Supp.3d 1
Parties Wesley LOUCKA, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN NAT'L LIFE INS. CO., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Scott Bertram Elkind, Elkind & Shea, Silver Spring, MD, for Plaintiff.

Byrne J. Decker, Pro Hac Vice, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Portland, ME, Robert R. Niccolini, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Zachary Stevens Stinson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, Kyle M. Noonan, Pierce Atwood LLP, Portland, ME, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TREVOR N. MCFADDEN, United States District Judge

This case involves the fraught question of insurance coverage for individuals with symptoms associated with Lyme disease

. Wesley Loucka brought this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, see 29 U.S.C. § 1132, claiming that Lincoln National Life Insurance Company improperly denied him disability benefits. Mr. Loucka says that Lincoln unreasonably concluded that he suffers from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ("CFS"), a condition that the relevant policy limits to 24 months of long-term disability benefits. He asserts the he has Lyme disease, which is not subject to the policy's 24-month benefits limitation. Lincoln, however, maintains that the medical evidence shows that Mr. Loucka does not have Lyme disease and his symptoms suggest CFS. The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Mr. Loucka has also moved to strike exhibits from Lincoln's summary judgment papers. For the reasons explained below, Mr. Loucka's Motion to Strike will be denied, his Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and Lincoln's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted.

I.

Wesley Loucka worked as a Systems Administrator at NOVA Corporation, which offered its employees long-term disability coverage through a group policy (the "Policy") issued by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, the Policy's insurer and claims administrator. See LIN00125–205. The Policy is subject to ERISA. See, e.g. , LIN00140.

Insureds seeking long-term disability benefits must first show that they meet the Policy's definition of "disabled." LIN000150. If an insured is disabled primarily because of certain "Specified Injuries or Sicknesses," then benefits are limited to 24 months. LIN000157. One such illness is "Chronic Fatigue Sickness," "a sickness that is characterized by a debilitating fatigue, in the absence of other known medical or psychological conditions. It includes, but is not limited to ... chronic fatigue syndrome

...." Id.

A.

In 2013, Mr. Loucka sought treatment for fatigue, joint pain, and muscle soreness. That May he tested negative for Lyme disease

and his metabolic screening panel came back normal. See LIN00621. Mr. Loucka was tested again in November 2013. See LIN05157–60. That test was also negative for Lyme disease. Id. Still, he sought treatment from Dr. Joseph Jemsek, whose clinic specializes in Lyme disease treatment. See LIN09169. During their initial meeting, Mr. Loucka told Dr. Jemsek that he had "had extensive exposure to ticks" and had found ticks on him, "but [they] never attached." Id. He also reported that he began noticing symptoms in February 2013 "with the onset of fatigue" and that only three months later he "notic[ed] excessive fatigue." Id.

Dr. Jemsek ordered another round of blood testing, and a private laboratory called IGeneX conducted IgM and IgG Western Blot

tests. See LIN07246–47. The IgM and IgG Western Blot tests are common Lyme disease diagnostic tests. See Daniel L. Depietropaolo et al., Diagnosis of Lyme Disease , 72 Am. Fam. Physician 297 (2005) (available at LIN00816–17, 00432–37). But IGeneX did not conduct an EIA/ELISA or IFA test, which the Centers for Disease Control's ("CDC") two-tiered Lyme diagnostic procedure requires before any Western Blot testing. LIN00212. IGeneX also used its own criteria for interpreting the test results instead of the CDC's. LIN007246–47. Ultimately, the IgG blot test was negative for the presence of Lyme disease under both the CDC's and IGeneX's criteria, and the IgM blot test was negative under the CDC's criteria but indeterminate under IGeneX's alternative criteria. Id.

In April 2014, Dr. Jemsek noted that Mr. Loucka was "still unsure about his Lyme diagnosis." LIN007140. Nonetheless, he put Mr. Loucka on an intensive antibiotic regime, a common treatment for Lyme disease

. See LIN00210–13. Even with antibiotics Mr. Loucka's symptoms persisted: he reported "increased neuropathy ;" "increased anxiety, [joint] pain ..., paresthesia[ ] in the face and brain, as well as ‘body agitation;’ " "gastrointestinal tenderness;" and "increased arthralgias and ... lower back pain." LIN007142. After Mr. Loucka began antibiotic treatments, IGeneX tested Mr. Loucka's liver tissue looking for evidence of DNA from the bacterium that cause Lyme disease

. LIN07243–44. The tests were negative for bacterial DNA. Id.

Later that year a psychologist, internal medicine doctor, and infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic evaluated Mr. Loucka and suggested he had "CFS and GAD [Generalized Anxiety Disorder

]." LIN007146. By September, after several months of antibiotics, Mr. Loucka continued to have "some ambivalence [about] whether he truly ha[d] tickborne illness," because he "had not seen the improvement he was hoping for" despite intensive treatment. Id. His condition was "only maintaining, maybe even slowly worsening." Id. Indeed, "[h]e continue[d] to have waves of fatigue, increasing[ ] lightheadedness, moodiness, full[ ] body agitation, brain tingling." Id. But Dr. Jemsek continued to prescribe intensive antibiotic treatments, even though Mr. Loucka reported "no real clinical progress" and he "[wa]s not responding well to therapy." LIN07150.

B.

Ultimately, Mr. Loucka filed a claim for long-term disability benefits, LIN15204–15, and he included with his application a functional capacity assessment from Dr. Jemsek. He diagnosed Mr. Loucka with "Lyme borreliosis

complex, a chronic, multisystemic, inflammatory illness." LIN15216. Lincoln's experts disagreed. Dr. Gary Greenhood, who is board certified in internal medicine and infectious disease, reviewed Mr. Loucka's claim and found that Mr. Loucka was impaired. LIN00014–15. But Dr. Greenhood warned that the evidence "does not support that the claimant has Lyme disease. In addition to no report of a first tier test to Lyme disease, both IgM and IgG Western Blot tests are negative by CDC ... criteria." Id. After Mr. Loucka submitted additional material, Dr. Greenhood conducted a supplemental review, but he maintained that Lyme disease was unsupported. See LIN00035. He instead concluded that "the likely diagnosis is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." Id.

Dr. Kent Crossley, who is board-certified in internal medicine and infectious disease, also reviewed Loucka's medical records for Lincoln. While quibbling with Dr. Greenhood's conclusion on impairment, he also found "no evidence of any infectious process including Lyme disease

." LIN02301. Dr. Crossley noted that Mr. Loucka's physical limitations were "entirely self-reported" and that "Western Blot testing was done in February 2014 and was negative." LIN02300. Dr. Crossley agreed that Mr. Loucka's symptoms "support a diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." LIN2301.

Despite the differing opinions with respect to impairment, Lincoln's claim examiner approved Mr. Loucka's claim for long-term disability, effective as of October 5, 2014. LIN14842. But because Mr. Loucka was found to be disabled due to CFS, the claims examiner explained that the Policy "limits benefits to 24 months for the condition causing [Mr. Loucka's] disability." LIN14843. In April 2016, Lincoln sent a letter to Mr. Loucka reminding him of the Policy's 24-month benefits limitation and informing him that his long-term disability benefits would end that October. LIN06134. Mr. Loucka appealed Lincoln's decision through the company's appeals process.

Dr. Mireya Wessolossky, who is board certified in infectious disease, reviewed Mr. Loucka's appeal. After reviewing the medical evidence, she concluded that there was "a lack of clinical and laboratory evidence for Lyme disease

." LIN08475. She observed that Mr. Loucka's "numerous blood tests" were "normal and negative" for Lyme disease

. LIN08474. She also noted that Mr. Loucka "had endured cycles of antibiotic therapy with lacking improvements." Id. And she disagreed with Dr. Jemsek's interpretation of Mr. Loucka's Lyme serology, because "by the CDC's criteria, [Mr. Loucka]'s tests were repeatedly negative." Id. Dr. Wessolossky concluded that Mr. Loucka's symptoms "seem to be related towards CFS," and based on the medical evidence, she was "under the impression that [Mr. Loucka] suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) associated with anxiety and depression." Id. Based on Dr. Wessolossky's report, Lincoln affirmed its decision limiting Mr. Loucka to 24 months of long-term benefits.

Mr. Loucka then filed this suit. But because the Policy requires claimants to exhaust two levels of appeal before suing, the Court stayed the action to allow Mr. Loucka to pursue a second-level internal appeal. See Court's September 13, 2017, Minute Order granting parties' Consent Mot. to Stay Litigation, ECF # 6. Dr. Joseph Vinetz, who is board certified in internal medicine and infectious disease, and Dr. Rajendra Marwah, who is board certified in rheumatology and internal medicine, reviewed Mr. Loucka's second-level appeal. Citing much of the medical evidence that has already been discussed, Dr. Vinetz concluded that Mr. Loucka did not "meet the criteria for the diagnosis of Lyme disease

." LIN00209–10. Dr. Marwah similarly concluded that Mr. Loucka does not meet the CDC's criteria for a diagnosis of Lyme disease. LIN00211. Drs. Vinetz and Marwah also agreed that Mr. Loucka's symptomology suggested that he suffers from CFS. See LIN00210–12. Even after Mr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Does 1-6 v. Mills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 13 Octubre 2021
    ...by reference in it, matters of public record, and other matters susceptible to judicial notice"); see also Loucka v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. , 334 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8-9 (D.D.C. 2018) ("[T]he CDC's Lyme-testing criteria and procedures are a matter of public record, and it cannot be reasonab......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health Sys.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • 3 Marzo 2022
    ...cases). To the extent that the Hospital contends that the information from the CDC's website constitutes inadmissible hearsay, (doc. 55, p. 9), the Court finds that it is admissible under public records exception to the hearsay rule under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8). See, e.g., United S......
  • Chipman v. Cigna Behavioral Health, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 14 Agosto 2020
    ...These informed medical opinions are themselves evidence on which Cigna could reasonably rely. See Loucka v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co. , 334 F. Supp. 3d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2018) (referencing "substantial, reliable evidence in the form of five separate medical opinions").10 Additionally, the IRO......
  • Does v. Mills
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • 13 Octubre 2021
    ... ... see also Loucka v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co., ... 334 F.Supp.3d 1, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT