As a designated intervenor in the above matter, I hereby present the following testimony in opposition to the merger of UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and Provident Companies. I have coordinated and discussed my testimony with the other intervenors so that I will not reproduce topics which they plan to discuss. Although Superintendent Iuppa ordered us to pick one representative, there is not one person willing to undertake this job and the extra costs and duties associated with it. Therefore, unless Mr. Iuppa plans to take away my intervenor status because an unwilling person will not come forward to represent my interests, I am willing to continue to represent myself.
My name is Dr. Judy Morris. I am a policyholder and customer of UNUM since 1990. I have an individual own-occupation policy from UNUM and a group own-occupation policy that was a benefit at my hospital. I have been practicing Emergency Medicine from 1988 to 1996 and therefore my occupation was that of an Emergency Room Doctor as defined in both of these policies at the time I became disabled by Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in October 1996.
First I wish to re-iterate my previous objections to the manner is which Superintendent Iuppa is managing these hearings. As Intervenor John Bussell put it, there appears to be a great effort to push this merger through without delay. In fact, most of us have only had a chance to participate as intervenors since late April. If this merger is approved, a merger between two multibillion dollar, multinational corporations, it will have resulted from a period of investigation far less than what either UNUM or Provident devote to the denial of a single disability claim and far less than the years it takes to develop the subsequent litigation. The deadline for submission of my testimony is 4 days from now. I have still not received, much less had time to read, review or even scan all of the discovery materials or even a good portion of them. There is obviously no time for me, as an ordinary person with no staff, no resources and not much time, to bring in witnesses or obtain the kinds of "evidence" a legal c
ase requires. Despite that I have been obtaining evidence of UNUM's illegal claims tactics for the last two years.
I am here to discuss UNUM's claims handling, integrity, and customer satisfaction from the viewpoint of the customer. Despite the Superintendent, UNUM's and the Applicant's protests, UNUM claims handling clearly falls within the four issues Mr. Berry has been granted permission to address and most certainly within the eight topics mentioned in the April 29, 1999 Amended Notice of Hearing signed by Superintendent Iuppa. Numbers 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 clearly indicate that the purpose of this hearing is to PROTECT UNUM's POLICYHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC. I will discuss how UNUM's claims handling and corporate policies show a disdainful attitude towards their own customers. I will discuss how UNUM's pursuit of profits in the late 1980's led them to sell high priced policies such as mine that they had no intention of honoring. I will discuss UNUM's claims handling by way of example of myself and numerous other policyholders and claimants who have appealed to me to help them. The Advocacy Committee and others will be
addressing the issues of Provident Company's claims handling. It should be self-evident that when two companies with extremely questionable claims handling, corporate policies that clearly put profitability ahead of policyholders, secretive documents, confidentiality agreements and untold numbers of dissatisfied customers want to merge, they are not thinking in terms of increasing service to the policyholders of either company. By extension, short term profits made by illegal and unethical claims tactics will have long term negative consequences for shareholders as well.
It is with some apprehension that I reveal the names of these claimants and their stories but most of them have trusted me to do whatever needs to be done to expose UNUM's criminally fraudulent claim denial tactics and forced litigation. However,
despite the fact that there are Federal Laws against tampering with witnesses in government investigations, based on my prior dealings with UNUM, the Maine Bureau of Insurance, Superintendent Iuppa, and other government officials, I am still concerned that by revealing the names and stories of these victims, I may be causing them further harassment at the hands of UNUM. However, and I have made this clear to all, I strongly feel that one of the reasons UNUM's tactics have been so successful for so long is the fear which they instill in their victims that coerces these victims into silence. Fear of harassment, fear of financial loss, fear of emotional upheaval, fear of litigation, fear of harassment of their treating physicians, and the fear of loss of benefits some of these people desperately need to obtain medical treatments and avoid homelessness.
The Conning and Company study Reinventing Individual Disability Income Insurance: The Long Road Back, 1996 states that in response to "documented..poor financial results of the industry" "tactical and structural changes were needed." "Subsequent financial results in 1993 and 1994 were worse than even we had expected. Only in 1995 did industry results (or at least results for some of the major companies) show evidence of stabilizing, and perhaps improving." This theme of financial difficulty particularly in certain high benefit groups runs through both UNUM's and the insurance industry's literature for the last several years. I will show you that the insurance company euphemisms "tactical and structural changes" as well as the beefing up of what are called "claims management units" are no more than illegal and unethical attempts to deny or terminate payment of legitimate claims by misdiagnosing claimants, intentionally misrepresenting policy provisions, intentional delays blamed on fax and mail service,
unreasonable and legally unenforceable definitions of the words "disability" and "proof", and forcing ill claimants into costly, emotionally wrenching litigation IF they are lucky enough to be able to find and afford an attorney.
Insurance exists for one purpose - to pay claims, just as the major purpose for the car industry is to provide cars that run. If an insurance company does not pay claims fairly, fully and promptly, they are not doing their job, just as if a car company was willing to sell and accept payment for a certain percentage of cars that didn't run. Some of us were willing to pay more for "Cadillac" policies that insured us from disability in our own occupation. Just as a Cadillac company can't receive payment for a Cadillac and deliver a Moped, insurance companies can't sell "Cadillac" policies and then change the policy provisions when delivery comes due. In the situation with UNUM, although they are continuing to pay some claims, they seem to have singled out for wrongful and fraudulent denials and terminations, certain diagnoses, certain occupational groups, and claimants with high benefit levels. Even small numbers of fraudulent denials in these groups result in large savings to the insurer. This savings is t
hen taken out of the policy reserves and applied to the profit margin. These savings to the insurer are made at the expense of the peace of mind and security policyholders had been promised and peace of mind and security that policyholders thought they were paying premiums for.
First I wish to say that despite what seems to be a small number of claimants on my list, 156, as compared with the thousands of policyholders with claims for benefits with UNUM, I was able to find these people one by one, and without too much difficulty by Internet postings, phone calls, word of mouth and other avenues. Because of the great efforts taken by UNUM to avoid disclosing these persons names and to intimidate people into silence, my list is actually a pretty substantial cross-section of claimants who are dissatisfied with UNUM. UNUM has consistently refused even in litigation, to reveal the nature or extent of policyholder dissatisfaction. Another obstacle to ascertaining the true extent of the criminality of UNUM and Provident's claims handling is the Confidentiality Agreements which many claimants are forced into signing under duress. I have a copy of a Provident Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit 1) that shows the extent they will go to in order to whitewash their behavior towards policyhol
ders. They even state that claimants required by the courts to release information by a court order must also notify the insurance company IN ADVANCE of the release of this information. And the threat for non-compliance with this order is that the company will demand repayment of any money the victimized claimant was able to get as part of a settlement AND the threat of additional attorney's fees. This type of "gag" agreement would obviously have a chilling effect on the willingness of claimants to come forward even if they had been forced under tremendous duress to sign this agreement and accept settlements that were less than they were entitled to. And without UNUM's cooperation, we have absolutely no way of knowing exactly how many of their claims are settled under these or similar conditions.
I'm going to briefly go down my list. A list of claimants whose
stories I know enough about to make them meaningful to you and that taken in summary shows UNUM's pattern and practice across the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. You will see that far from peace of mind, we have suffered great distress and torment at the hands of our own insurer. What is even more surprising is the lengths and expense that UNUM goes to in order to inflict that torment upon us and then cover it up.
Exhibit 2 - Claimant's stories
Exhibits 3 & 4 - Sworn Affidavits from my treating physicians
These 150 stories illustrate certain patterns. Although UNUM tried very hard not to use the same tactics too many times to avoid establishing a pattern it is obvious that they have a plan. In another insurance company lawsuit, General American, a jury was so outraged that they awarded a disabled dentist $58 Million dollars in punitive damages because his attorney also showed a company scheme to delay or deny benefits by a variety of the same mechanisms as used by UNUM.
Many of the claimants UNUM is targeting have diseases such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, fibromyalgia, pain syndromes and other disorders which have been legitimized and characterized by reputable medical researchers within the last decade. However it is UNUM's intention to attempt to misdiagnose these people as frauds, malingerers, or mentally ill to avoid payments. Many of UNUM's policies have severe limitations for mental illnesses. A document written by a UNUM doctor Dr. Carolyn Jackson, the Southern Regional Benefits, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Management Program, Exhibit 5, clearly states UNUM's motivations where she says "UNUM stands to lose millions if we do not move quickly to address this increasing problem. The subjective nature of CFS leaves us highly exposed to the self-diagnosis of claimants, some of whom take advantage of doctors and the entire insurance industry." She goes on to mischaracterize people with a diagnosis of CFS as "highly paid professionals slipping into self-imposed oblivion"
and UNUM considers CFS "Neurosis with a new banner." It is UNUM's intention, despite the findings of the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health to state that CFS is a mental illness or malingering and that doctors who diagnose this disease are incompetent and being taken advantage of by their patients. But scarier still, and more importantly, in the context of this hearing is the following statement "eventually expand this project to be used in all 'subjective' claims."
Ladies and Gentlemen, from my point of view as a doctor, if denying and terminating claims for fraudulent reasons, harassing claimants, misquoting their doctors and medical reports, and the other tactics used are successful in "subjective" claims, they would be just as successful in any claim. Many of the people with these supposedly subjective claims have years of documented history, clinical evidence, immunologic, radiological and neuropsychological tests confirming their disorders that UNUM simply refuses to accept as proof.
To tell a person with disabling chronic fatigue syndrome that they just aren't motivated is no different than making the irrational claim that just because Christopher Reeves still has his arms and legs, he should get up and walk.
And what UNUM is doing is not just chance or mistakes or even incompetence. In July 1997, I wrote a letter to all of the members of UNUM's Board of Directors, sent by Certified Mail return receipt. Exhibit 6. I notified them that I felt UNUM's tactics were unethical and illegal. In response I got a threat from one of UNUM's attorneys that legal action would be taken against me if I continued posting on the Internet. Exhibit 7.
After I asked UNUM to prove me wrong, they never threatened to take legal action against me again. Exhibit 8. However as far as I can tell, they also did not investigate or address my allegations. Why? Because they knew exactly what they were doing.
In summary, the only job UNUM does, it is not only not doing well, but it is doing it intentionally illegally, unethically and immorally in a percentage of its cases designed to increase UNUM's profitability at the expense of the policyholder. From what I've heard Provident is doing the same thing, and possibly worse. In fact, I have to introduce this letter from Provident regarding one of their policyholders, Virginia Mitchell. Exhibit 9. Mrs. Mitchell's claim got paid shortly after she wrote Provident a letter in her own blood. I think from now on when someone asks me how to get a claim paid, I will suggest this as a successful tactic. This merger must not be allowed and both UNUM and Provident need some serious internal and external investigation of their claims handling. It does not make sense to allow two racketeering organizations that have shown no sign of reforming to join together to form a more powerful organization. Not if you have any interest in protecting policyholders and the public.
Thank you for allowing me to give this testimony.
Judy Morris, MD
June 8, 1999
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:32:03 -0400
Subject: John Bussell's prefiled testimony for the hearing
STATE OF MAINE
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL REGULATION
BUREAU OF INSURANCE
IN RE: )
)
FORM A FILING OF PROVIDENT ) PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
COMPANIES, INC. AND HUGH O. ) INTERVENORS JOHN AND
MACLELLAN, JR. PERTAININT TO ) LETANTIA BUSSELL
THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL )
BY MERGER OF UNUM LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA )
)
Docket No. INS-99-1 )
INTRODUCTION
On May 17, 1999 by Order of the Superintendent of Insurance of the State of Maine, John Bussell and Letantia Bussell (Busssells) were granted intervenor status pursuant to 5 M. R. S. A. § 9054 in the above captioned matter. No restrictions upon the scope of intervention were ordered. Intervenors, nevertheless limit themselves to the 8 items on the Amended Notice of Hearing dated 4-29-99. Bussells served a timely request for discovery which has not been responded to by Applicants or ruled upon by the Superintendent. A separate Motion to Compel answers has been filed. Bussells have consulted with the other intervenors and conclude the following:
1. Other intervenors have knowledge of the Bussells interests and prefiled testimony.
2. Other intervenors have been consulted regarding Bussells discovery requests and prefiled testimony.
3. Other intervenors do not have objections to Bussells discovery requests or prefiled testimony.
4. Other intervenors have not duplicated Bussells discovery requests or prefiled testimony.
5. Other intervenors have coordinated efforts with Bussells intervention.
6. Other intervenors interests do not coincide with Bussells.
Bussells have only recently (last 5 days) been given access to very small portions of intervenor Berry's First Discovery Request, which are not pertinent to Bussells interests. Bussell was not able to "conclude discovery" as the Superintendent has ordered since Bussell was not permitted to even start discovery. Furthermore, even though Bussells executed the required confidentiality agreements, Superintendent sustained Applicants objections to any access to "confidential" information.
Bussells have made every attempt to work in good faith openly and honestly with all parties. It has been discouraging that the Superintendent has publicly given his approval to the merger before any intervention or hearings, and the Applicants have also publicly represented that they have approval from Maine before any hearings commenced.
Nevertheless, under the disadvantage of being deprived of meaningful discovery and threatened by severe punishment by the Superintendent, Bussells wish to offer the following testimony.
John Bussell, M.D. was a practicing cardiac anesthesiologist for 20 years in Los Angeles, with primary responsibility for pediatric cardiac anesthesiology, as well as lung and heart transplants. He has been medically unable to practice his specialty since late 1992 due to severe degenerative arthritic disease in his thoracic spine and complete heart block for which he is totally pacemaker dependent. Letantia Bussell, M.D. is a practicing Dermatologist in Los Angeles since 1979. Both have insurance with UNUM since 1983, and Provident since 1987. Letantia Bussell has never made a claim to these insurers. John Bussell has never made a claim to UNUM, but was a claimant to Provident's "old block of business." As a result of litigation initiated by Provident, the Bussells have gained direct knowledge and insight into the inner workings of Provident Companies.
BUSSELLS CONTENDS THAT APPLICANTS ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY CHARACTER, EXPERIENCE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL AND OPERATE UNUM LIFE, OR CAUSE UNUM LIFE TO BE OPERATED, IN A LAWFUL AND PROPER MANNER.
Bussells will show that:
1. Provident has a history of systematically violating, disenfranchising and alienating an entire class of policyholders (own occupation non-cancelable disability income insurance policies sold during the 1980's-the "old block of business").
2. Provident sold these policies, "old block of business," with the intention of never paying benefits. This is fraud.
3. Provident engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate their own stock price to the personal advantage of the Applicants. Provident took a suspicious "one time only change to earnings" in 1993 thereby depressing stock prices. Applicants then granted themselves stock options at these reduced prices. Applicants then engaged in the fraudulent scheme to deny, delay and otherwise obstruct the rightful payment of claims to an entire class of policyholders. This resulted in a decrease in "expenses" to the company, with a resultant increase in "earnings." The increased "earnings" resulted in increased stock prices from which the Applicants have personally benefited by selling their options and making millions.
4. Provident disguises and misrepresents the existence of millions of dollars of liabilities arising from the "old block of business," thus misleading policyholders and the investment community about the true nature of its business and accounting practices.
5. Provident has admitted publicly, albeit in disguised form, this plan of deception.
6. Applicants have engaged in illegal, dishonest and unethical insurance practices. This has been found to be a pattern of conduct by courts of law.
7. Applicants have and are engaging in a cover up scheme to avoid scrutiny of their own illegal practices using personal character assassinations upon those who might question or expose them.
8. Applicants have lied and presented false and misleading testimony to policyholders, governmental regulatory officials, the investment community, Federal and State Courts, and this Bureau of Insurance.
Having been denied reasonable access to discovery, including any evidence to contradict the above, Bussell will rely upon:
1. Public documents published by Applicants
2. Public records of Applicants
3. Governmental filing of Applicants
4. Court fling of Applicants
5. Court rulings and findings of Applicants
6. Court records of Applicants
7. Files obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from many of the States Insurance Commissioners
8. Affidavits and public files of individuals who have made claims to Provident
Bussell will testify that Applicants are not qualified to control or operate UNUM
Life in a lawful and proper manner, and indeed will bring to UNUM a legacy of dishonesty and deceit coupled with a pending avalanche of undisclosed liability from the "old block" of business which will jeopardize UNUM Life, UNUM policyholders and the economy of the State of Maine. The Applicants are not to be trusted.
Assuming intervenor is allowed to testify, this entire presentation, without questions or interruptions, will take less that one hour of the hearing time.
Respectfully submitted June 7, 1999
John Bussell
Letantia Bussell
Enc: Letter to Honorable Angus King dated June 3. 1999
cc: Service list
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 15:08:43 -0400
Subject: NO big surprise
UNUM just filed a Motion with Superintendent Iuppa suggesting that
NONE of the Intervenors be allowed to testify at all in the merger
hearings. They even have the order all written up and awaiting his
signature. (Why doesn't he just give them a rubber signature stamp?)
Judydoc
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 23:42:03 -0400
Subject: Extreme Measures
Here's the latest on Judydoc's exploits. It's now Tuesday evening.
I'm still in Maine. After they escorted me out of the hearing
yesterday, some big brute of a guy told me that if I came back
I'd be arrested. So I spend today resting and regrouping. I did
have my car, with it's anti-UNUM slogans and signs, taken over and
parked at the hotel this afternoon.
After careful consideration I decided to go back to the hearings
tomorrow and risk getting arrested. After all, I've not been charged
with any crime. I have not been served with a restraining order.
As far as I can tell my Intervenor status has not been revoked so
I have a RIGHT to be there.
What could they arrest me for?
Then I watched the evening news. It appears Superintendent Iuppa
decided to wrap up the hearing this afternoon!
I guess I'm just going to have to MOVE to Portland. By the way,
once again this is a lovely and very friendly city. Almost every
person I spoke to had their own insurance horror stories.
Judydoc
I did get my picture and some of the story in the papers. Check it out.
http://www.portland.com/news/story9.shtml
http://www.bangornews.com/News/61599Plasticgun.html
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:20:25 -0400
Subject: Why I did it
Op-Ed (This will probably not be printed in the Portland Press Herald but
I did drop a copy at their office)
EXTREME MEASURES
Two multibillion dollar insurance companies are conducting merger hearing in Portland, Maine this week.
A "disgruntled" policyholder manages to disrupt the hearings by dropping a harmless toy gun at the
feet of the paranoid head of one company. James Orr, III, UNUM's CEO, comments that he thought the act was "a little
extreme." The policyholder, Dr. Judy Morris, was escorted out of the hearings and told
she would be arrested if she tried to return to the building. No charges were filed.
I am that policyholder. Let me tell you what drives a person to extreme measures. What the newspapers
did not tell you is how my life and the lives of other UNUM and Provident policyholders dramatically changed for the worse
after they filed claims with these company. The results of my two year investigation
have brought me into contact with scores of policyholders. All were advised and supported by their doctors in their decisions to
apply for the disability benefits they were told they were entitled too. All had gone though difficult periods trying to continue
working while suffering from various illnesses. Many, like myself, experienced inexplicable delays, lost papers, harassment of
our doctors, irrational excuses for
claim denials, and other "claims management strategies." Some like myself were followed by armed Private Investigators for
days or weeks. A few others even related disturbing incidents such as the ones that happened to me where someo ne tried to
run me off the road and the investigator's reports for that period were totally false, and I was
chased for 45 minutes in my car by another PI on another day who also lied about it in his reports.
Yes, it leads to paranoia, anxiety, fear, despair. Several claimants committed suicide. Many went bankrupt
and lost their homes.
For two years I have endeavored to get the media to report this. I have written evidence of fraud by UNUM's"Doctors" and
claims adjusters. I have sworn statements from my treating physicians refuting the "diagnosis" U NUM's
doctors made of my condition. I have a written ruling from the Maine Board of Medicine that UNUM's Dr. Jane Pringle was
indeed "Practicing Medicine" when she misdiagnosed my illness as a mental condition. Her partner in crime, a Dr. Peter Mirkin,
who made the same misdiagnosis, does not even hold a medical license. It's been over a year. Why hasn't the Attorney General
filed charges against "Dr." Mirkin for practicing medicine without a licen se?
I filed a lawsuit. It's tied up in the courts. I have no income. I'm exhausted. I'm spending all of my time
gathering evidence and learning how to be my own lawyer.
I applied for and was granted Intervenor Status to present evidence against the merger. Then I, along with the other six
intervenors, was threatened with fines up to $5000 if we didn't pick one person to speak for
us all within 3 days. Then all of our testimony was stricken because we didn't comply with that ultimatum
and because our testimony wasn't written in question and answer format.
The last straw was when I attempted to make a statement at the public session. The Superintendent tried to
shut me down there too. He told staff to turn off the microphone and told the court reporter to stop recording.
I gave the statement anyway and then I "dropped the gun" on behalf of the UNUM claimants who committed suicide or died of
their illnesses while trying to get UNUM to pay their benefits.
So here I sit pondering. Will they really haul me off in handcuffs when I walk into the hearings tomorrow?
What will they charge me with? Will I end up in jail because I filed a claim for insurance benefits two years ago and decided to
fight (nonviolently) for my rights?
The only weapon I carry is the most powerful weapon of all - The Truth.
Judy Morris, MD
Postscript: After careful consideration I had decided to return to the
hearings on Wednesday. The only person who was in any danger from my
toy gun stunt was myself! (barring one of the idiots shooting at me and
missing). No charges were filed against me. I threatened no one. In
fact the toy gun fell on the floor and I never touched it. It was to
represent how UNUM and Provident are killing claimants. I don't think
the big brute had any grounds to tell me I would be arrested. In fact
as far as I could tell, I was still an intervenor. When I got up to
give my speech (which I'll post on the next E-mail), Superintendent
Iuppa and Assistant Attorney General Judith Chamberlain told me I couldn't
talk during the public session unless I withdrew as an Intervenor. I
told them I was NOT withdrawing but I would still give my speech. I
asked them if they were revoking my Intervenor status and they said "no."
Then they told the court reporter to stop recording and ordered the micro-
phone turned off. I continued to talk. Then UNUM's attorney got up and
tried to shout louder than I was talking. Eventually Iuppa said I could
give my speech and had the microphone turned back on and the court reporter
start over. But I knew they would do to me what they did to George
Ginther - strike the testimony from the record retroactively on some
technicality. That's why I pulled the stunt. I mean business.
I wasn't even sure if that would even work, and of course I have no idea how they will try to spin it. But when I got led out of the room, there
were a dozen reporters and TV cameras now interested to know why I did it.
(By the way, for a long time UNUM has been telling people who inquire about
what is written on the Internet that it's written by people with mental
illness.....i.e. I'm the one they are referring to. They have come right
out and used the term "crazy" to describe me to other lawyers in the past.)
Almost every person I talked to in the next two days in Portland gave
me positive feedback. One person even said that one newshow reported it as
being humorous.
Anyway as I said I decided to see if they really would arrest me. On
what charge? I was still and Intervenor. I had a right to be there.
I would not have a gun, fake or otherwise, when I returned. There were
no charges filed and no restraining order. Would they really haul me
away in handcuffs. Unfortunately because they had deprived the Intervenors
of the chance to give testimony, they ended the meeting on Tuesday. So
when I went back on Wednesday, the hearings were no longer going on.
I did come home to find a new settlement offer from UNUM. They are now
offering me my full two years worth of benefits on my group policy as
a mental illness. So if they are now offering me that, how do they
explain why they only offered me less than a year's benefits initially,
and then denied the claim except for one month when I refused the
settlement? They also made the usual threat that if I won in court, I
would just be entitled to benefits due and subject to any examinations
they wish to conduct. They are nothing if not consistent.
By the way, another funny thing they said during the hearings. Jason
Adkins went to the hearings to tell them he was filing for reconsideration
on the Injunction to delay the hearings because the Intervenors were
denied meaningful participation. True to form, UNUM's attorney stood up
and said something like "Well, Mr. Adkins, you are here now. You are
participating."
Anyway, I'm pooped. And I'm NOT sorry I did it, so if you have any
inclination to bitch me out - please keep it to yourself.
Judydoc
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 19:23:48 -0400
Subject: The Speech I gave (despite their attempts to silence me)
Judy Morris, MD
The other Intervenors boycotted the hearing and sent in similar letters
accusing Iuppa of conducting a "kangaroo court."
Judydoc
261 Bumstead Rd.
Monson, MA 01057
(413) 267-3606
E-mail: judydoc@the-spa.com
Alessandro A. Iuppa
Superintendent of Insurance
Maine Bureau of Insurance
State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333
Fax: (207) 624-8599 June 13, 1999
Dear Superintendent Iuppa,
Thank you for granting me intervenor status to testify in the upcoming UNUM/Provident Merger hearing Docket No. INS 99-1. However, had I known
that you were going to abuse your power to deprive me of the right to present important testimony and that you were going make this intervenor status a mockery and a sham, I would not have bothered. I spent considerable time and energy, in the extremely short period you allotted us to prepare meaningful testimony that certainly SHOULD be considered in the hearings. Your behavior in this matter, in depriving myself and the other intervenors of Due Process and the Right to Be Heard by denying all of our requests and motions and now even our testimony, on technicalities, is clearly an abuse of power, and evidence of undue influence by UNUM and Provident.
If these two companies are so certain of their honesty and integrity they should have NO FEAR OF HONEST FEEDBACK FROM THEIR CUSTOMERS. Instead of assisting in this, or at the very least remaining neutral, you have used every opportunity to confuse the issues, made the process impossible for us, and even went as far as intimidating us with threats of exorbitant fines.
I fail to be appeased by the recommendations of your so-called "Advocacy Panel" (which appears to have been set up in advance specifically to usurp and subvert true intervenors from participating in this hearing) that a survey of customer satisfaction be done long after the merger occurs. There are still tens of thousands of non-can, own-occ policies in the hands of UNUM's customers. I fail to see how this merger will improve their satisfaction when they innocently file claims for their disabilities, when UNUM and Provident's corporate mindset and attitude towards claimants has not changed or, if anything, has changed for the worse. Victimized claimants understand the true meaning of the euphemisms used in the industry and in these hearings, such as "aggressive claims management" and "best practices"
really referring to any way you can get rid of a permanent or expensive claim, whether through lowball buyout, misdiagnosis, harassment, extortion and gag clauses. None of us wants to "return to work" more than I do and
my work ethic is clearly evidenced by the amount of work I am putting into this claim. My chronic illness unfortunately results in a disability that precludes me from returning to my former occupation without endangering myself and my patients! I will not jeopardize my patients and myself and go against the recommendations of my physicians just so YOUR SHAREHOLDERS can profit by not paying my claims.
The entire tone of these hearings is about nothing but profit and selling more policies. I have heard NOTHING so far that can convince me that UNUM
has ways of ETHICALLY returning people to work that the medical profession
is not already engaged in. If anything, based on my experiences and those
of the people who have related their experiences to me, UNUM's handling of our claims increased our stress and workload, and ruined our finances to the point where any chance of recovery was, in fact, diminished.
I was deprived of due process when UNUM denied my claims unfairly and fraudulently and rubber-stamped their denial during the appeals process.
I'm being further denied due process and my rights as a citizen to speak out
against this company by your actions with regards to this hearing.
The closest comparison to what is going on here comes from the Declaration of Independence:
"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government….The history
of the present king of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
absolute Tyranny over these States…."
This document goes on to describe the same series of obstructions of Justice, attempts by these two companies and the Superintendent of Insurance to ignore the laws of the States and the Country, to engage in Mock Trials and Sham Proceedings, to continue to allow insurance companies to rob customers of premiums and to deprive claimants of benefits. Those who attempt to fight for their rights find themselves further deprived of Trials by Jury through abuses of the legal system, misrepresentations of laws, and "tort reform."
The Object appears to be that insurance companies be allowed to establish their own arbitrary rules for which contracts they shall honor, how common words are to be defined, and to engage in behavior that harms the very persons they purport to be protecting all in opposition to the plain language of the Federal and State laws that govern insurance.
As the declaration continues:
"In every state of the Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the
most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by
repeated injury."
Just as the colonists felt that "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by
every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people," UNUM and Provident, by their behavior as Tyrants and collusion with government officials in inflicting harm on their policyholders, and then going to great lengths to cover up and hide that harm are certainly not worthy of continuing in a business that serves the Public.
It is already common knowledge that some members of the insurance industry consider themselves at war with the desires and needs of the American People, as evidenced by the words of Trent Lott in October 1997. By your behavior in this you have shown yourself to be "deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity" with the policyholders and public you are sworn to protect.
And while I will stop short of declaring war on you, UNUM and Provident, as that denotes a violence that is not in my nature, I hope and pray that with the shreds of justice left in our system, and the concerted, diligent, and persistent efforts of others like myself and the other Intervenors, we will bring justice to bear on you and your corrupt Empire and you will be made to
answer for the defiance of the foundations of justice upon which this country was founded.
I, along with the other Intervenors, are therefore Boycotting this hearing as meaningless and a sham, since you have made it patently clear that I will not be allowed to address the meeting, nor have my concerns considered by the decision makers.
Sincerely,
Judy Morris,MD
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:18:09 -0400
Subject: Portland Press Herald Article (Sorry about the bad link yesterday)
Here's the story from the Portland Press Herald. There were no pictures
with the on-line version. The paper version basically just showed a
"security officer" (in a regular suit and I walking out together). It
wasn't very dramatic, just out two heads talking to each other. He was
a large man. I had kind of a surprised look on my face.
Of course I crashed at 1:30 pm today and I'd still be asleep but I had
a few phone calls at 7:00pm (no, the reporters are not calling for more
information).
Judydoc
Tuesday, June 15, 1999
Most Unum divisions to stay
By DEAN LUNT , Staff Writer
© Copyright 1999 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.
While layoffs will still occur at Unum Corp., the company does not plan to relocate anymore full departments out of Portland following its merger with Provident, according to a Provident executive.
Thomas R. Watjen, chief financial officer of Provident Companies, said that plans for the organizational structure of the merged UnumProvident are now "very specific" and Unum's investment division is likely to be the only full department that leaves Portland.
"We see no material adjustments to the activities now residing in Portland, Maine, other than the investment division," Watjen said. Watjen's comments came Monday during the opening day of state hearings into the planned merger between Provident and Unum to create UnumProvident. Technically, Provident is acquiring Unum requiring the hearings to take place in Maine and not in Tennessee.
Superintendent of Insurance Alessandro A. Iuppa must decide whether to approve the merger after considering its effects on such things as policy holders, competition and financial stability. He has up to 30 days to make a decision, but Unum and Provident executives hope to receive word by June 30.
The first two hours of the hearing were set aside for public comment, but only three people testified and one of them was escorted out by security.
The first, George Eagan Ginther, opposed both the merger and the way Iuppa has handled the hearing process. A group of opponents have unsuccessfully attempt to delay the hearings objecting to several of Iuppa's rulings.
However, Ginther refused to accept questions. His comments were not part of the record and will not be considered.
The second, Judy Morris, pulled a stunt that involved a toy gun.
Morris, a former emergency room nurse in Massachusetts, has been a vocal critic of Unum since she was denied a disability claim in 1997. She wore a T-shirt defined UNUM as "Unethical. Nasty. Underhanded. Mean." Morris attacked both Unum and Iuppa. She compared Iuppa to a British king during the colonial period and accused him of holding "mock trials and sham hearings."
"You have used every opportunity to confuse the issues and make the process impossible for us," she said.
At the end her speech, Morris said she had a gift for Unum Chief Executive Officer James F. Orr III that she was going to offer in memory of some dead friends.
She bent down and took a folded T-shirt from her purse. When she unfolded it a toy gun fell to the floor.
The room sat momentarily stunned while Morris, who quickly said it was a toy, walked toward Orr holding up the T-shirt. Security then rushed down, grabbed the toy gun and escorted Morris out of the room.
Orr called the incident "disconcerting."
"It sounded light when it hit the floor. It didn't sound metallic. But you never know," he said.
Judith Chamberlain, serving as counsel for insurance regulators, said she did not know they would file charges.
Following the morning excitement, William Laubenstein, serving as counsel for the independent Advocacy Panel, spent hours questioning executives from Unum and Provident.
Laubenstein said among his concerns were anecdotal evidence about that Provident sometimes was too aggressive in getting people back-to-work, and the financial soundness of the merger.
During questioning, executives provided vague answers about the merger's specific effect on Portland and Unum.
So far the companies have revealed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that they intend to eliminate through layoffs, early retirement and attrition about 1,575 of its 13,800 worldwide jobs. Hundreds of job cuts are expected to come from Unum.
However, executives also said they expect to hire several hundred employees in the claims department over the next year or so. People in claims typically deal with the customers regarding the processing of any disability claims.
Robert Broatch, chief financial officer for Unum, also revealed that even before the Provident merger, Unum considered its operating costs too high and its organizational structure too inefficient. Unum executives were already planning to cut those costs.
That would likely have translated into job cuts.
Broatch estimated that about two-thirds of operating costs for an insurance company are tied to people.
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 23:19:19 -0400
Subject: How Superintendent Iuppa rewrote history -
the Decision and Order of the Merger Hearings in Maine
Here's the high points of Superintendent Iuppa's Decision and Order
dated 6/18/99, with my comments in brackets and asterisks.
1. *** [First note that the notice of the merger hearings was only
posted in the following newspapers] - five daily papers in the State of
Maine, the ASIAN EDITION of the Wall Street Journal, and the Financial
Times of LONDON.
2. From the Decisions and Order "The Superintendent received
additional requests for intervention from Dr. John Bussell, Dr. Judy
Morris, and Dr. Letania Bussell on May 12, 13, 14, and 18, 1999. Requests were received from Debra L. Fisher and Dr. Steven Grahak
on May 18, 1999. All five requests were granted. In granting the requests, the Superintendent ordered the Intervenors to coordinate their efforts and make single, comprehensive filings. The coordination was required in order to avoid repetition and undue delay."
*****[Here's what the Superintendent's order ACTUALLY SAID:
"May 21, 1999
"Gentlement and Ladies:
"It has come to my attention that all intervenors have failed to comply
with the Orders requiring intervenors to designate a representative on
or before 12:00 Noon (edt) on May 21, 1999. Although some of the
intervenors have out-standing requests for reconsideration of my Order,
that does not absolve any intervenor from complying."
"Please be advised that all intervenors are now considered to be in
violation of the Orders requiring designation of a representative. The
Intervenors are hereby given until 5:00 pm (edt) Monday, May 24, 1999,
to designate one representative to complete discovery and present
evidence at the hearing. If a representative is not designated, I will
instruct my counsel to initiate enforcement actions pursuant to 24-A.M.S.R.A. Section 12-A(1)(c) that provides for civil penalties of
up to $5000."
"Respectfully,
Alessandro A. Iuppa, Superintendent"]
******[Obviously merely an idle threat made to intimidate us since none
of us complied and no fines were ever levied.]****
3.****[ As you know we were all told that our prefiled testimony was not
going to be admitted, except for extremely limited participation by Frederick Berry's attorney Jason Adkins. Letter dated May 27, 1999 from Iuppa
states "Mr. Berry, Dr. Morris, Dr. Grahek and Dr. John Bussell were
admonished for their continuing failure to comply with the Superintendent's
May 19th Order relating to their need to designate an individual to coordinate their efforts. The next procedural deadline in this proceeding
is the June 7, 1999 deadline for filing of prefiled testimony. Notice was
provided to the Intervenors participating in the Prehearing Conference,
and through this Prehearing Memorandum is given to Dr. Letantia Bussell and Ms. Fisher, that a continuing failure on June 7, 1999 to comply with
this Order of the Superintendent requiring coordination among the
intervenors will result in nonadmission of testimony on behalf a
noncomplying intervenor. Footnote: This potential sanction relates on
to Dr. Morris, Dr. Grahek, Dr. and Dr. Bussell and Ms. Fisher. Mr. Berry
was required to designate witnesses prior to the May 19, 1999 Order of the Superintendent and has complied with that requirement."
***[Drs. Grahek, Bussell, Ms. Fisher and I had, by this time spoken, and
agreed to "coordinate" our testimony such that none of us was going
to be reproducing information of the others. However we each still
maintained a right to speak for ourselves. In fact Ms. Fisher was too
sick to participate at all and was going to let me speak for her on UNUM's
claims handling practices. Dr. Bussell and his wife were working together
on Provident's claims handling practices. And Dr. Grahek wished to
cross-examine witnesses, which I did not wish to do.]***
***[I believe there was a further memorandum (which I can't locate now)
stating that the prefiled testimony we had each submitted was not
going to be allowed because a) we hadn't picked one representative,
and b) it wasn't in question and answer format.]****
****[After all these denials and ultimatums, it certainly appeared that none
of us, except for the limited cross-examination allowed to Fred Berry's
attorney was going to be allowed. Even Fred Berry's expert witnesses
has their testimony stricken because the prefiled testimony wasn't
complete due to the fact that they had not had time to examine all
the records. So we all agreed to stage a "boycott" refusing to
participate when it was obvious that we would not be allowed to speak
or submit our testimony anyway.]***
****[As you know, I went to Maine and gave a "non-Intervenor" public
statement, despite Superintendent Iuppa having the microphone
turned off and telling the Court Reporter to stop reporting and having
one of UNUM's attorneys trying to outshout me. I then pulled the gun
stunt and was escorted out of the hearing by security and told that
if I came back I would be arrested.]***
****[Jason Adkins briefly talked at the beginning and advised the
Superintendent that the Intervenors were boycotting and he was
there only to advise the panel that he was filing a court order for
Reconsideration of the Injunction he had filed 3 days before]****
Here's Iuppa's final version in the Decision and Order related to the
above issues:
"None of the Intervenors, personally or through counsel or other
representatives, appeared at or participated in the hearing.
Footnote: Dr. Judy Morris appeared during the public comment
period and gave an unsworn statement but left the premises prior
to the evidentiary portion of the hearing."
"At the hearing held on June 14 and 15, 1999, the Superintendent
accepted evidence and arguments for the Applicants and the
Bureau of Insurance Staff Advocacy Panel. The Intervenors
voluntarily chose not to present any testimony or documentary
evidence at the hearing. Nonetheless, the Superintendent entered
the prefiled testimony of Intervenors Berry, Bussell and Morris into the
record as hearing officer exhibits in order to have some of the
information produced by the Intervenors in the record."
"No credible, sworn testimony or evidence that calls into question the
qualifications and integrity of the individuals who will operate UNUM-
Provident has been presented."
And in a later footnote related to whether the merger would have
detrimental effects on UNUM's policyholders "Dr. Morris read an
unsworn statement into the record during the public comment portion
of the hearing, but declined to be placed under oath or to be subject
to cross-examination. She also was not present at the appropriate time
in the hearing to aver to her prefiled testimony for reasons described
elsewhere in this decision. While unsworn comments may be placed
on the record of proceeding, they may not serve, under Maine law, as
a basis for decision by the Superintendent."
*****[This statement is another outright lie. It had been my intention
right from the start to present a sworn statement. Due to the fact that
the Superintendent tried to prevent me from speaking at all, I was never
asked, nor did I refuse, to be placed under oath. And, obviously,
I couldn't be cross-examined because I'd been told by some huge
thug, that if I returned to the building, I'd be arrested!]*****
4. ****[The issue of UNUM's claims handling was not actually even
addressed by the Superintendent. However repeated reference was
made to a letter signed by Judith Shaw Chamberlain on May 20, 1999,
that "UNUM's claims handling practices are not at issue in this
proceeding and will not be considered by the Superintendent"
whenever I tried to introduce evidence or document requests relevant
to UNUM's claims handling.]
5. Interestingly enough, the Superintendent's own so-called Advocacy
Panel in their statements said, according to Iuppa's own report "On the other hand, Counsel for the Bureau of Insurance Advocacy Panel, in his
opening statement, noted 'the intervenors have some doubts about any
benefit to policyholders from this proposed merger, and the Advocacy Panel believes considerable work needs to be done, particularly by
Provident Life, in the way that complaints and claims are handled and
policyholders are treated. The panel is concerned that the needs and
rights of policyholders may fall victim to the vigorous return to work
philosophy developed by Provident Life and to be the cornerstone of
the UNUMProvident's integrated claims operation. In particular, the
Panel wonders whether return to work plans may require seeking
appropriate treatment that has not been recommended by the
claimant's care providers and is not covered by a claimant's health
insurance.'
An analysis done for the Bureau of Insurance by Arthur Anderson
also noted "several areas of concern with aspects of Provident's
compliance program with respect to market conduct and claims
issues." ****[Note that in Arthur Anderson's official reports, they
mentioned several times that they had been hired to perform only
a 'limited scope review' and that certain aspects of even this limited
scope were incomplete because they had not received pertinent
documents.]****
So due to Iuppa's refusal to HEAR anything he didn't want to hear,
he concluded "no substantial evidence was developed at the hearing
which would support a finding that the merger would be detrimental
to policyholders in terms of UNUM's ongoing ability to fulfill its
contractual obligations to policyholders."
Ultimate Iuppa's recommendations are that Market Conduct Studies
be done LONG AFTER THE MERGER and that the companies
develop claims procedures and appeals procedures manuals.
6. ***[Interestingly the copy of the Superintendent's ruling that was
sent to me was REDACTED (certain things blacked out). The blacked
out parts appear to relate solely to UNUM's and Provident's net income and assets and costs of the merger. Why would this be secret???]***
In case anyone is interested:
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS
"Any party to the hearing may initiate an appeal within thirty days after
receiving this notice. Any aggrieved non-party whose interests are
substantially and directly affected by this Decision and Order may
initiate an appeal within forty (40) days of the issuance of this decision."
Judydoc
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:56:33 -0400
Subject: Several Lengthy Posts
Hi Folks,
You've been mighty quiet lately. I'm finally recovered from my
very severe relapse of CFS. I was quite despondent, desperate
and depressed for a while. I missed the deadline for returning to
UNUM their interrogatories and document production requests which
I finally got off in the mail today (10 days late). Meanwhile, when
I picked up my mail later there was threat from them that if I didn't
return their interrogatories and doc. Prod. requests they were going
to file a Motion to Compell.
Meanwhile I had a telephone conference for an hour with another law
firm that claimed they were really interested in the case. After the
call I sent them a box of documents in the mail. They made it sound
like the decision was up to me. Well, true to form, they called me
a few hours later (at least they didn't wait weeks to months like
other firms have)to tell me they decided the case was too expensive
and their firm too small to take it on a contingency.
I'm heading up to Maine tomorrow. On Friday there is going to be
a hearing at 8:30 am Maine district Court regarding UNUM's restraining order they have taken out against me basically ordering me not to "stalk"
their employees or go on their property and to stop "harassing" them.
If I happen to get any chance to defend myself, and the judge gives
a damn, here's the speech I hope will convince him that my actions
were a RESULT of UNUM's HARASSMENT of me, and that I pose no danger to them. Although I pretty much expect that no matter what I say, the
judge will give UNUM whatever it wants, in keeping with the current
pattern of injustices by the Maine Government and courts (i.e. the
merger hearings).
Here's the speech. This may be the only place you will hear it.
For two years, while attempting to get UNUM Insurance Company to pay my disability benefits I have conducted an exhaustive investigation of them. Webster's Dictionary defines a Racket, as in Racketeering, as "any method of exploitation for money ranging from illicit business, and gambling schemes to an organized extortionary ring operating by use of violence, with hired legal protection and bribery of politicians." I have been attempting to get the evidence I have gathered into a court of law which I feel will prove these allegation, but it is very time consuming, expensive and exhausting.
James Orr and his company and the employees that do his bidding are attempting to avoid the emotional consequences of their crimes by having "hired legal protection" and forcing me to communicate only with their "hired legal protection."
I assure you, your honor, even though I was mentally and physically exhausted and unable to resist this "irresistible impulse" to do something distasteful and outrageous, I have not crossed the line into doing anything that would endanger anyone but myself. I felt 100% confident that no one was likely to catch anything from the dried excrement of my healthy 6-week old kittens by mere casual contact. (I submit a picture of the kittens).
Furthermore, when Roger Liska submitted a sample of his bloody diarrhea to UNUM, they did not take legal action against him. Here is an affidavit stating what he did and why. I also submit a letter written by Provident describing how a claimant wrote them a letter in her own blood. Virginia Mitchell and Roger Liska's claims got paid and neither company took legal action against these people.
When I pulled the toy gun stunt at the merger hearing, the only one in that room in real danger was me if their bodyguards had pulled their concealed weapons. Unless, of course, they also couldn't shoot straight. I am being pushed to the edge by what can only be described as institutional abuse, compounded by government cover-ups. For example the recent coverup of the diversion of millions of dollars by the CDC that Congress had appropriated for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome research that was not used for that purpose and the recent sham merger hearings. Just as abused spouses and oppressed citizens can reach the breaking point, so did I. (Here is an accurate newspaper report of what happened at the merger hearings. I threatened NO ONE. I didn't even touch the toy gun. Then my actions were whitewashed by the Superintendent of Insurance in his official report of the hearings).
UNUM has absolutely NO evidence that anyone is in any imminent danger from me or that I have any intention of engaging in any of the activities they wish to restrain me from. Nor do I plan to waste my time and energy "stalking" anyone. And I can't afford to hire private investigators to do it for me as UNUM does. Your honor, these are 6 videotapes their Private Investigators took of me over a 4 week period. They caught me driving my car, running errands, and even resting. UNUM had no legitimate rationale for having these PI's, who by the way, DO carry guns, follow me around and videotape me, except for harassment and intimidation purposes. Furthermore I believe their PI's went over the line in their efforts to terrorize me but with the legal system the way it is, I will probably never have the opportunity to prove my suspicions.
In Lee Ingalls v Paul Revere Life Insurance the Appeals Court of North Dakota upheld a $3 Million dollar punitive damage award for emotional distress and mental anguish in the wrongful denial of an insurance claim. Judge Justice Meschke upheld the opinion of William F. Hodny with the statements quoting "Because a primary consideration in purchasing insurance is peace of mind and security it will provide, an insured may recover for any emotional distress resulting from an insurer's bad faith. Jarchow v. Transamerica Titles. Ins. Co., 122 Cal. Rptr. 470, 486 (Cal. App. 1975). "An insurer's bad faith breach of its duties to an insured is likely to cause mental anguish; It is inconceivable that a layman, unaccustomed to the courtroom and fearful of the entire judicial process, who is also subjected to financial pressures from a refusal of an insurer to discharge its commitments, will not be subjected to stress the precise effects of which are difficult to measure in exact terms but which nevertheless, are prese
nt. 16A John Alan Appleman and Jean Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice $8878.55 p. 442 (Rev. Vol. 1981) And UNUM went much farther than just denying my claims with their so-called investigation. They attempted to disrupt my relationships with my treating physicians, defamed me to my former employer and more.
In actuality I'm the one who is in mortal danger. The mindset of this company is such that they think only in terms of profit/loss ratios. I've talked at least three people out of suicide that were in litigation with UNUM for what sounded to be legitimate claims. One ultimately committed suicide. UNUM's
fraudulent claims denial tactics, although supposedly meant only to increase UNUM's profits, would and are driving ordinary people to extremes and desperation.
However if UNUM would like to continue to file frivolous actions against me, harass me, and force me to come back to Portland, they will be giving me more than ample opportunities, and justification, for acting out on the inevitable irresistible impulses that will result from my mental anguish, emotional distress, exhaustion, frustration, and despair.
So, your honor, if you feel like aiding and abetting this emotional
abuse, side with them. If you feel, as I do, that citizens are being
deprived of justice due to the endless delays, expenses and aggravations
of the current civil justice system, please give UNUM a stern warning and
let me go home in peace.
Judydoc
Top of Page
Judydoc's Page
Insurance Page
Uncivilization and its Discontents
Home Page
Email Judy Morris
at: judydoc AT the-spa DOT com
Email me
at: bhammel AT graham DOT main DOT nc DOT us
The URL for this document is:
http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/merger.html
Created: July 22, 1999
Last Updated: May 28, 2000