From judy-doc@coollist.com Thu Jul 22 02:21:22 1999
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 23:18:29 -0400
From: judy-doc List Owner 
To: judy-doc@coollist.com
Subject: UNUM's answers to my Interrogatories

(These are in summary form. Summaries of UNUM's answers in Capitals)

UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT
				DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

JUDY E. MORRIS, MD			)
					)
			Plaintiff	) Civil Action No. CA 98-30204 FHF
					) INTERROGATORIES TO UNUM
UNUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA,            )
	et al.				)
			Defendants

Pursuant to Fed.Rul.Civ. P. 26 and 34, please answer the following questions and deliver the answers to plaintiff Dr. Judy Morris at 261 Bumstead Road, Monson, MA 01057 within the guidelines set out by the Rules.

INSTRUCTIONS: Whenever a person is named, that name is to include full name, including middle initial, any aliases, current home and business addresses and telephone numbers, any licenses or degrees they may hold, their title and job description, and any bonus or incentive plan in which they are a participant or a recipient of anything of pecuniary value in the last 4 years. Also if applicable all professional licenses (past and present) and date and state of issue.

Please provide any information even if you cannot provide all the information requested. If you cannot provide all of the requested information please state the information you cannot provide and a valid reason why you can't in keeping with the Federal Rules.

If you assert any objections such as work-product or attorney-client privilege, please be sure to follow the FRCP guidelines that stipulate that you must identify and describe each document and why it is privileged by making the "claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection." FRCP 26(b)(5). Mere unsubstantiated objections will be considered harassment and intentional delay.

Words which appear to you as vague and ambiguous should be assumed to have plain English meaning as understood by a reasonable layperson. If you are still not sure, look up the words or terms in a dictionary such as Webster's Collegiate.

If you find a request burdensome because of the amount of material required, then you may produce the material incrementally, as long as you advise me of such and start producing the information within the allotted time frame of 30 days.

Please consider this an ongoing request in keeping with FRCP 26 and supplement the information should there be changes or updates or other information becomes available.

If I receive generalized unsubstantiated or boilerplate objections that do not comply with Rule 26, I will immediately seek monetary and disciplinary sanctions from the court up to an including a default judgment against UNUM.

Please also state the names, titles, addresses, phone and other identity of each person who participated in preparing the answers to these interrogatories, and of each document that was consulted in the course of preparing answers to these interrogatories.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO MY INSTRUCTIONS, OBJECTION BECAUSE I AM REQUESTING "MATERIAL PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE. THEN THEY SAID THE ANY INFORMATION THAT HAD BEEN "INADVERTENTLY" PRODUCED WAS NOT DEEMED TO BE WAIVED FROM PRIVILEGE.

Please completely answer the following:

1. Who is the plan administrator and named plan fiduciary for plaintiff's insurance policy and from where was this information ascertained?

UNUM OBJECTS TO THIS INTERROGATORY BECAUSE THE TERMS "ADMINISTRATOR" AND "PLAN FIDUCIARY" ARE VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS. SUBJECT TO THIS OBJECTION AND WITHOUT WAIVER THEREOF, UNUM REFERS PLAINTIFF TO THE POLICY OF INSURANCE....

2. State the clause in the Contract of Insurance Covering plaintiff the you feel gives UNUM discretion to interpret policy provisions and definitions and determine proof of claim, in accordance with ERISA law and Case Precedents (see Kearney v. Standard for definition of what constitutes granting of discretion).

UNUM OBJECTS TO THIS INTERROGATORY BECAUSE IT SEEKS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE. THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

3. State by name and Docket number all Case Law and other laws leading UNUM to believe it had legal justification to deny this claim and conduct the type of investigation that it did (credit checks, surveillance, diagnoses made by non-examining physicians, etc.)

OBJECTION: WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE

4. State contract provisions allowing UNUM to override the opinions of my treating physicians who had determined me to be disabled from my occupation as an ER doctor.

UNUM OBJECTS TO THIS INTERROGATORY BECAUSE IT SEEKS INFORMATION PROTECTED BY THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE. THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

5. Person(s) MOST knowledgeable about bonus, compensation, and incentive plans offered to UNUM employees during period 1994 to present including "Goals 98," "Gold 98" or any similarly named programs.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT

6. Identification of each person who had anything to do with the handling of my claim, their supervisors, managers, department heads, officers and directors and a description of their qualification and the part they played in the disposition and investigation of my claim.

UNUM IDENTIFIED HERE ONLY 6 INDIVIDUALS DESPITE THE FACT THAT OBVIOUSLY MANY MORE PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS CLAIM.

7. Please identify Custodian(s) of records

OBJECTION: VAGUE AND UNCLEAR

8. Identify the person(s) who had the final authority for approving or denying plaintiff's claim.

BONNIE GILFILLAN, SENIOR BENEFIT ANALYST

12. Please specify each and every specific reason for obtaining the Consumer Credit Reports (or whatever name you call the reports that contained credit and financial information) on plaintiff from Transunion Credit and Information Resource Service Company and the date these reports were requests and the person who made the request. Please cite the portion of the Federal Credit Reporting Act that authorizes this.

OBJECTION: REQUIRES LEGAL ANALYSIS, WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE THEN THEY DEFEND THEIR OBTAINING CREDIT REPORTS BASED ON THE FACT THAT I SIGNED THEIR BLANKET RELEASE DESPITE THE FACT THAT I DID NOT KNOW THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO THAT INFORMATION.

13. Please state the specific purpose and authority for UNUM to conduct and develop an Extended Dossier on Plaintiff's father, Morton J. Morris. including the name of the person who authorized this report and produce the policy or written guidelines that allow UNUM to obtain background information on plaintiff's family memebers.

THEY CLAIM THIS INFORMATION WAS ALL PUBLIC RECORDS AND THEREFORE THEY HAD A RIGHT TO OBTAIN IT.

14. Please identify by name each and every software product in use by UNUM (including those departments of UNUM having to do with investigation, storage, litigation, and claims handling of disability claims) in the last five (5) years including but not limited to any and all programs which have the following functions or capacities: (a) image storage, (b) document retrieval; (c) email and /or electronic communications; (d) electronic file storage; (e) indexing of claims; (f) investigation or analysis of claims; (h) word processing; (I) records of payments; (j) scheduling of independent medical examinations.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT, UNDULY BURDENSOME, PROPRIETARY, WORK PRODUCT

15. Please identify any scientific articles or sources regarding the determination of disability status of Emergency Room Physicians.

OBJECTION: THIS INFORMATION IS EQUALLY AVAILABLE TO CLAIMANT, ALSO THEY OBJECTED THAT I WAS ASKING THEM TO CONDUCT RESEARCH FOR ME.

17. Please identify the names, addresses and job titles of all persons who acted for or on you behalf and who were involved in any way in the handling of the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits since the date UNUM received notification of claim until the present day including persons who were present at meeting or "roundtables" or other gatherings (in person or by teleconferencing) in which plaintiff's claim was discussed in particular or in general.

OBJECTION: WORK PRODUCT, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THEY CLAIM THERE ARE NO "ROUNDTABLES"

18. For each of the last five years, please state the total number of new disability claims that UNUM received from claimants during each such calendar year. You can separate by group (ERISA governed) vs. Individual claims.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT

19. For each of the last five years, please state the total number of individual and group claims that UNUM had outstanding (i.e. no determination made to pay or deny, claim denied or terminated, or denial or termination was appealed by claimant) during each such calendar year.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT

20.  Please provide the following information, as has already been ordered
     to be produced to Claimant Steve Russell by the Arizona Supreme Court.
     See attached orders Filed June 26, 1998. 
     All lawsuits filed against UNUM since January 1, 1994 concerning
     denial of disability benefits under a UNUM disability insurance policy:
     a.  the date the lawsuit was filed;
     b.  the caption of the case;
     c.  a general description of the allegations in the complaint;
     d.  the court in which the lawsuit was filed and the docket number
         of the suit;
     e.  whether there was a trial, the date and place of the trial,
         if any, the outcome of the trial;
     f.  the names and addresses of the opposing parties' attorneys; and
     g.  the names and addresses of the opposing parties.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT

21. Please explain under what circumstances UNUM and a claimant would agree to a confidentiality agreement. Please enclose a sample of the type of confidentiality agreements Plaintiff's have signed in the past.

UNUM ENTERS INTO A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT WITH A CLAIMANT WHEN THE CLAIMANT AGREES TO DO SO. EACH AGREEMENT IS UNIQUE TO THE SPECIFIC CASE; THUS, THERE IS NO SAMPLE TYPE OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.

22. What percentage of settlements for lawsuits filed for wrongful denial or termination of disability benefits include confidentiality agreements of any kind.

UNUM HAS NEVER TRACKED THIS INFORMATION AND IS UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT PERCENTAGE OF SETTLEMENTS INCLUDE A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.

23. Please produce examples of claims for CFS from physicians similar to plaintiffs that were paid in full or are receiving benefits in order for plaintiff to determine if her claim was handled in a similar or different fashion and if she was required to produce some kind of proof not required of other claimants.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT, CLAIMANT CONFIDENTIALITY (AREN'T YOU GLAD THEY ARE PROTECTING YOUR CONFIDENTIALITY SO WELL THAT THEY WON'T RELEASE THIS INFORMATION TO OTHER CLAIMANTS?) THEN THEY SAID "UNUM RESPONDS THAT THERE ARE NO EXAMPLES OF CLAIMS FOR CFS FROM PHYSICIANS SIMILAR TO PLAINTIFF'S BECAUSE EACH CASE IS CONSIDERED ON ITS OWN MERITS. THERE IS NO STANDARD POLICY REGARDING CFS."

24. Please state the total cost of the handling, investigation, and litigation expenses of plaintiff's claim to date and the projected total costs.

OBJECTION: IRRELEVANT, WORK PRODUCT, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

25. Have any documents been destroyed or removed or otherwise altered, that would have altered the original contents of my entire file including files from the CCU, SIU, and other departments? Please name the person most familiar with UNUM's document destruction programs that purges files of documents, post-notes, internal memoranda or other written material in any way. Please submit guidelines for this program if any exist.

OBJECTION: NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED OR REMOVED OR OTHERWISE ALTERED. BECAUSE NO DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED OR REMOVED OR OTHERWISE ALTERED, THE NAME OF THE PERSON MOST FAMILIAR WITH DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IS NOT RELEVANT AND IS NOT REASONABLY CALCULATED TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

Thank you for your cooperation.



Judy Morris, MD				Dated: June 9, 1999
PRO SE
261 Bumstead Rd.
Monson, MA  01057


Certificate of Service:
I hereby certify that on June 9, 1999, I mailed AND FAXED a true and
complete copy of the foregoing document postage prepaid to:

Katherine Robertson, Esq.  Phone:(413) 272-6215, Fax (413) 785-5060
Buckley, Richardson and Gelinas, LLP	 
1500 Main Street, Suite 2700		 
PO Box 15507				 
Springfield, MA  01115-5507	


Judy Morris, MD				Dated June 9, 1999
PRO SE
261 Bumstead Rd.
Monson, MA  01057

 Judydoc's Home Page 


 Insurance Page 


 Uncivilization and its Discontents 


 Home Page 








Email Judy Morris


at: judydoc AT worldnet DOT att DOT net


Email me, Bill Hammel


at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us





The URL for this document is:


http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/DOCS/dni4-072199.html


Created: July 22, 1999


Last Updated: May 28, 2000