Lincoln Financial LTD Denial? We’re Champions for Folks Who Need Help.

1. Understanding Lincoln Financial Group and the LTD Landscape

Lincoln Financial Group (formally Lincoln National Corporation) is a major force in the U.S. insurance market. Headquartered in Radnor, Pennsylvania, Lincoln operates through subsidiaries including The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York. With over $387 billion in assets and a century-long history, Lincoln holds a significant share of the group disability insurance market—especially since its acquisition of Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston in 2018.

That $3.3 billion acquisition expanded Lincoln’s group benefits business dramatically, adding roughly 10 million insured lives and reshaping how long-term disability (LTD) claims are handled. Claimants previously insured by Liberty Mutual suddenly found their claims managed by Lincoln, a company with different internal policies, procedures, and review philosophies. This integration raised concerns among legal professionals, some of whom noted an increase in LTD denials post-acquisition. Whether due to operational strain, a shift in claims strategy, or both, the transition appears to have made an already complex claims environment even more difficult to navigate.

Lincoln offers group LTD policies to employers and markets them as a financial lifeline for employees who become unable to work due to illness or injury. The promise is straightforward: income replacement when you need it most. But for many claimants, the reality is far more complicated. Lincoln has faced regulatory scrutiny for claim-handling practices—including a $50.7 million settlement with the New York Department of Financial Services in 2015 over delays and systemic processing errors in life and disability claims. More recently, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor reached a separate settlement with Lincoln regarding its failure to properly verify life insurance coverage eligibility, raising fresh questions about broader administrative weaknesses.

Despite solid financial ratings from A.M. Best, Moody’s, and Fitch, Lincoln’s operational practices have drawn criticism. The company has reported strong financial results in its group protection segment, attributing part of its profitability to favorable LTD outcomes. That may sound like good news—unless you’re the claimant whose denied benefits helped drive that result.

At Dorian Law PC, we’ve seen firsthand how Lincoln’s LTD claim process can feel stacked against the individual. Their reputation for imposing high evidentiary burdens, relying on in-house medical reviews, and delaying communication is not just anecdotal—it’s reflected in legal challenges, consumer complaints, and our clients’ lived experiences.

In the sections that follow, we break down what to expect from Lincoln Financial Group’s LTD claim process—and what to do if your benefits are denied, delayed, or under threat.

2. Why Lincoln Financial Group Denies LTD Claims

Summary: Lincoln Financial Group often denies LTD claims by asserting that claimants fail to meet the policy’s definition of disability, lack “objective” medical evidence, or fail to comply with procedural requirements. This section explores Lincoln’s frequent denial tactics, its aggressive use of independent medical reviews and surveillance, and the challenges posed by vague policy terms and shifting eligibility standards. Understanding these patterns is critical to overcoming unfair claim denials.

Successfully filing a long-term disability (LTD) claim with Lincoln Financial Group can feel like running an obstacle course. While the insurer promotes its process as user-friendly and supportive, claimants frequently encounter delays, denials, and procedural red tape. Understanding Lincoln’s common tactics and reasoning can help you prepare, respond, and protect your rights.

2.1. Frequent Denial Reasons

Lincoln Financial Group denies LTD claims for a variety of reasons, many of which are common across the industry—but often executed with a level of scrutiny that feels uniquely burdensome. Common denial rationales include:

• Insufficient medical evidence: Lincoln frequently claims that a claimant’s records don’t objectively demonstrate disability, especially for conditions like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, long COVID, or mental health impairments. Even well-documented, physician-supported diagnoses may be dismissed if they rely on self-reported symptoms.

• Definition of disability not met: Many policies use a two-stage definition of disability. During the “own occupation” phase, the question is whether you can do your specific job. After 24 months, most policies shift to the more stringent “any occupation” standard, where Lincoln often argues that you can perform alternate work, even if those jobs are theoretical or outside your actual qualifications.

• Pre-existing condition exclusions: If Lincoln finds evidence of treatment or diagnosis shortly before your policy took effect, it may invoke pre-existing condition exclusions to deny coverage—even when the connection is tenuous.

• Disagreements with treating physicians: Lincoln routinely hires internal or third-party doctors to conduct "paper reviews" of your medical file. These reviewers often contradict the conclusions of your treating physicians, even without examining you, and Lincoln gives their opinions significant weight.

• Administrative pitfalls: Simple paperwork errors—like missing a deadline, submitting incomplete forms, or failing to respond quickly—can result in denials. Lincoln’s strict procedural enforcement gives them a ready excuse to reject claims on technical grounds.

• Policy interpretation disputes: Lincoln sometimes interprets policy language in ways that narrow eligibility for benefits. These interpretations may appear reasonable on the surface, but in practice, they can be highly restrictive.

• Surveillance: Lincoln may deny benefits based on video surveillance or social media content it claims contradicts your reported limitations, even if the captured activity is brief or misleadingly portrayed.

2.2. Investigation and Review Tactics

Lincoln Financial Group doesn’t just deny based on what's in your records—they often go looking for reasons to say no. Common investigative tools include:

• Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs): Lincoln may require you to attend an IME with a doctor of its choosing. These exams often focus on objective measurements and may minimize the subjective experience of chronic pain or fatigue. If you decline to attend, your benefits may be cut off.

• Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs): These standardized tests evaluate your ability to perform physical tasks—but often under artificial conditions that don’t reflect the demands of a real workday. Lincoln may use an FCE to argue you’re capable of sedentary work, even if your condition fluctuates or worsens over time.

• Paper-only file reviews: Perhaps the most controversial tactic, Lincoln relies heavily on in-house or contracted doctors to review your file without ever speaking to or examining you. These reviewers often cherry-pick favorable facts and dismiss treating physicians’ findings with boilerplate justifications.

• Vocational assessments and TSAs: When transitioning your claim to the “any occupation” phase, Lincoln often commissions a Transferable Skills Analysis. These reports may identify theoretical jobs you could perform—regardless of whether they’re realistic, available, or pay a livable wage.

• Surveillance and social media monitoring: If you’ve filed a claim, assume that Lincoln may be watching. Surveillance is often timed around IMEs or appeal deadlines and used to misrepresent isolated moments as proof of full-time work capacity.

• Ongoing document requests: Claimants report being inundated with repetitive or vague requests for additional documentation, creating unnecessary delays and procedural landmines that can derail otherwise valid claims.

2.3. Procedural Hurdles

Even before a denial, Lincoln’s internal processes can place claimants at a disadvantage. These hurdles include:

• Poor communication: Many claimants report struggling to reach their claims examiner, receiving inconsistent updates, or getting the runaround when they call.

• Delays in claim decisions: Lincoln’s public materials say claims are reviewed in days. In reality, some claimants wait weeks or months without updates.

• Two mandatory appeals: Unlike many insurers who require just one internal appeal before litigation is allowed under ERISA, Lincoln often mandates two. This extends the process and gives the insurer more opportunities to harden its denial rationale.

• Strict deadlines: ERISA rules apply rigid appeal windows—usually 180 days per round. Miss one deadline and your right to further benefits or litigation could be lost entirely.

• Limited transparency: Claimants sometimes struggle to get a copy of their full claim file after denial, making it harder to understand or challenge the insurer’s rationale effectively.

2.4. Challenges Based on Specific Conditions

Certain medical conditions face heightened skepticism from Lincoln Financial Group:

• Mental health conditions: These claims are often capped at 24 months and heavily scrutinized. Even with psychiatric support, Lincoln may terminate benefits early if objective evidence is lacking.

• Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue: These diagnoses are real and disabling—but difficult to prove to insurers demanding lab tests or imaging. Lincoln’s skepticism often leads to early terminations unless the record is carefully constructed.

• Chronic pain and long COVID: These conditions may fluctuate or defy easy measurement. Lincoln’s reliance on IMEs, surveillance, and paper reviews makes these claims particularly vulnerable to denial.

• Post-24-month transitions: The switch from “own occupation” to “any occupation” is a flashpoint. Lincoln commonly uses vocational experts and non-examining doctors to argue that claimants can perform light or sedentary jobs, regardless of their actual ability or availability of such work.

Lincoln Financial Group applies a methodical, multi-layered approach to disability claim denials—often with the goal of exhausting claimants into giving up. But understanding their system is the first step in beating it.

3. What It Feels Like to File an LTD Claim with Lincoln Financial Group

Summary: Many individuals dealing with Lincoln Financial report feeling overwhelmed by poor communication, delays, and a lack of transparency in the claims process. Claimants frequently describe the experience as adversarial, especially when facing medical conditions without clear objective proof. This section highlights the emotional and financial toll that Lincoln’s practices can take—and why being proactive and well-prepared is essential.

For many claimants, filing a long-term disability claim with Lincoln Financial Group is not just a legal or medical process—it’s an emotional and financial ordeal. While Lincoln advertises streamlined claims and supportive service, actual claimant experiences often tell a different story.

3.1. Claimant Perspectives

Feedback from consumer forums, legal case files, and social media reveals a consistent pattern: claimants frequently describe the process as overwhelming, isolating, and demoralizing. Common sentiments include:

• “I feel like I’m being treated like a liar.”

• “They just want me to give up.”

• “It’s exhausting to deal with them while I’m already sick.”

These accounts are not isolated. The volume and consistency of these experiences suggest that systemic issues may be at play—not just the frustrations of a few.

3.2. Common Frustrations

Claimants report a wide range of challenges when navigating Lincoln Financial’s LTD process:

• Communication breakdowns: Difficulty reaching claims managers, unreturned voicemails, inconsistent instructions, and long hold times are frequently cited. Some claimants say they feel ignored or even deliberately stonewalled.

• Delays: Many report waiting weeks or months for updates, decisions, or payments—even when all documentation has been submitted. These delays compound financial strain and emotional stress.

• Excessive documentation demands: Repeated requests for the same records, last-minute demands for additional forms, or burdensome paperwork requirements are commonly described. Some claimants feel the process is designed to wear them down.

• Unclear explanations for denials: Denial letters often rely on generic language or reference complex policy language without explaining clearly how the evidence was deemed insufficient.

• Surveillance: Discovering that Lincoln hired a private investigator—often confirmed only after requesting the full claim file—can feel invasive and degrading, especially when used to twist normal daily activities into supposed “proof” of ability to work.

• Two mandatory appeals: For many, learning they must go through not one but two internal appeals before they can file a lawsuit is deeply discouraging—especially when both stages feel predetermined to affirm the original denial.

3.3. The Emotional and Financial Toll

The impact of Lincoln Financial’s LTD process goes far beyond paperwork:

• Financial instability: A delayed or denied claim can quickly spiral into missed rent, depleted savings, credit card debt, or foreclosure. Some claimants are forced to turn to family or charity for basic needs while waiting on a decision.

• Mental health deterioration: The stress of fighting for benefits often exacerbates pre-existing conditions—particularly depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Some report that the process itself became a new source of trauma.

• Loss of trust: Claimants frequently express a sense of betrayal—not just by the insurer, but by their employer who offered the coverage. What began as a promise of protection becomes a source of pain.

• Isolation: Without legal or emotional support, many feel completely alone in the process. Even basic questions—like how to file an appeal or obtain the claim file—can become paralyzing under stress and illness.

3.4. Representative Experiences

Claimant forums such as Reddit’s r/disability and review platforms like the Better Business Bureau describe the following real-world experiences:

• A claimant with approved short-term disability suddenly denied LTD, then ghosted by their case manager.

• A parent denied benefits for ADHD-related impairments due to Lincoln’s strict interpretation of mental health exclusions.

• A cancer survivor forced to repay months of benefits after Lincoln retroactively claimed an exclusion applied—despite never raising the issue earlier.

• A software engineer with fibromyalgia described as “capable of sedentary work” by a non-examining reviewer, even though they could barely sit or type without pain.

These stories highlight the human cost of a system that often feels more adversarial than supportive.

Filing an LTD claim with Lincoln Financial Group can take a heavy toll—emotionally, financially, and physically. The experience is often defined by frustration, delays, and a sense of being disbelieved. But knowing what to expect and having the right support can make a critical difference.

4. Lincoln Financial’s Public Image vs. Claimant Reality

Summary: While Lincoln Financial promotes a streamlined and supportive LTD claims process, the reality for many claimants tells a different story. Discrepancies between Lincoln’s stated procedures and actual claim handling practices—like the use of biased medical reviews or procedural hurdles—can complicate valid claims. This section examines that disconnect and prepares readers for what to expect.

Lincoln Financial Group presents itself as a values-driven insurer offering stability, service, and integrity. But when it comes to long-term disability claims, there’s often a stark contrast between the public-facing promises and the real experiences reported by claimants.

4.1. What Lincoln Says About Its LTD Process

According to its official materials, Lincoln Financial aims to offer:

• Streamlined digital claims: An online portal for easy submission and status tracking.

• Supportive services: Programs like vocational rehab and return-to-work assistance.

• Transparent timelines: Promised claim reviews within four business days once paperwork is complete.

• Comprehensive benefits: Policies promoted as providing critical income replacement during periods of disability.

The company also emphasizes its financial strength and longstanding history—often referencing its association with Abraham Lincoln and values like honesty, responsibility, and dependability.

4.2. What Claimants Actually Experience

Despite these assurances, many claimants describe experiences that feel anything but transparent or supportive. Key discrepancies include:

• Digital disconnect: While Lincoln promotes its online claim system as simple and efficient, claimants often report that portal access is inconsistent, file uploads fail, or communication within the system goes unanswered.

• Communication failures: Official channels describe multiple points of contact and responsive service. But claimants frequently report being bounced between departments, having voicemails ignored, or receiving contradictory instructions.

• Paper vs. reality: The claim process is portrayed as clear-cut—submit the paperwork, get a decision. In practice, it often involves repetitive document requests, vague denials, and what feels like shifting goalposts.

• Support services that feel performative: Programs like Employee Assistance Services or vocational rehab are highlighted in marketing but can feel inaccessible or weaponized—used to justify claim terminations or return-to-work pressure rather than offer real support.

4.3. A Closer Look at Marketing vs. Practice

Marketing Message: “We offer prompt reviews.”

Claimant Experience: Weeks or months of delay, even after submission of all required forms.

Marketing Message: “Your case will be handled by experts.”

Claimant Experience: Repetitive phone calls, limited access to case managers, and reviews by non-examining consultants.

Marketing Message: “We provide compassionate support.”

Claimant Experience: Feelings of being surveilled, disbelieved, or treated like a fraud.

Marketing Message: “You can trust us to be fair.”

Claimant Experience: Overwhelming documentation demands, vague denials, and a two-level appeal process few other insurers require.

4.4. Why the Disconnect Matters

This gap between stated policy and actual process is more than marketing puffery—it directly affects real people facing life-altering illness or injury. When claimants enter the LTD process expecting clarity and compassion but find an adversarial system instead, the result is often:

• A loss of trust in both the insurer and the employer who offered the coverage.

• A higher likelihood of abandoning a valid claim due to emotional or financial burnout.

• An increased need for legal support—not to exploit the system, but to simply survive it.

Understanding this gap is essential for anyone considering how to navigate an LTD claim with Lincoln Financial Group. The story told in brochures may not reflect the real path ahead—but with proper preparation, that path can still lead to success.

5. What the Courts Say: Legal Trends in Lincoln Financial LTD Cases

Summary: Federal and state court decisions reveal that Lincoln’s LTD denials often hinge on how the insurer interprets policy language and evaluates medical evidence. While courts may defer to Lincoln under ERISA's “abuse of discretion” standard, they can also hold the company accountable for unreasonable delays, flawed reviews, or selective use of evidence. This section outlines how litigation outcomes vary based on the policy type, legal standards, and evidentiary strength.

When internal appeals are exhausted, many claimants turn to the courts. Reviewing how judges evaluate Lincoln Financial’s LTD decisions helps illuminate the most common pitfalls—and the kinds of insurer behavior that courts reject.

5.1. The Legal Framework for Lincoln LTD Disputes

Most Lincoln Financial LTD claims fall under ERISA, the federal law that governs employer-sponsored benefit plans. This means:

• You must appeal internally first: Litigation isn’t allowed until you’ve exhausted the insurer’s appeal process. With Lincoln, that often means two appeals instead of one.

• Your case is judged based on the “administrative record”: Courts usually cannot consider evidence you didn’t submit during your appeal.

• The standard of review often favors the insurer: If Lincoln’s plan grants “discretionary authority” (as many do), the court applies a deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard—meaning Lincoln wins unless its decision was plainly unreasonable.

However, courts don’t rubber-stamp every denial. Lincoln’s decisions are regularly overturned when they ignore medical evidence, misapply policy language, or rely on flawed vocational or surveillance reports.

5.2. Common Themes in Lawsuits Against Lincoln Financial

Lincoln’s LTD denials tend to trigger litigation over the same core issues:

• Failure to give weight to treating physicians: Courts criticize Lincoln for relying on in-house or third-party reviewers who never examine the claimant, while ignoring more detailed opinions from long-term treating doctors.

• Over-reliance on “paper reviews” and flawed IMEs: Judges may find denials unreasonable when Lincoln bases them solely on internal reviews, especially when they contradict consistent medical records.

• Vocational assessments that misfire: Courts often scrutinize Lincoln’s Transferable Skills Analyses (TSAs). If they assign incorrect job titles, fail to consider cognitive or physical limits, or rely on unrealistic assumptions, they can be grounds to reverse a denial.

• Disregarding favorable SSA decisions: If Lincoln encourages a claimant to apply for Social Security Disability (SSDI) but later denies LTD benefits without addressing the SSA’s disability finding, some courts consider that inconsistent and unfair.

• Procedural violations: ERISA requires insurers to follow specific procedures—like clear denial explanations and fair opportunity to appeal. Lincoln has been faulted for violating these duties in some cases.

5.3. Notable Court Rulings Involving Lincoln Financial

A sampling of cases shows the range of outcomes:

• Berg v. Lincoln – Court reversed denial, finding Lincoln’s internal review ignored robust treating physician evidence and an SSA award.

• Mullins v. Consol/Lincoln – Denial overturned due to a vocational assessment that misidentified the claimant’s job and misjudged her ability to work.

• Hawks v. Lincoln – Denial upheld under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard because Lincoln’s IME provided enough justification and the court found no procedural violations.

• Parks v. Lincoln – Claimant succeeded on appeal; court criticized Lincoln for inconsistent reasoning, disregarding key evidence, and offering new justifications only during litigation.

• Beckering v. Lincoln – Denial affirmed where Lincoln relied on an in-person IME and had consistent evidence of non-disabling cognitive issues.

5.4. Takeaways from the Litigation Landscape

These rulings highlight important strategies for claimants:

• Build a complete administrative record: Don’t hold back evidence for later—what you submit during the appeals process is often all the court can consider.

• Anticipate denial tactics: Expect a “paper review,” a possible IME, and a vocational analysis. Be ready to rebut them with expert support.

• Understand the legal standard: Winning under “arbitrary and capricious” requires showing Lincoln’s denial was not just wrong, but unreasonable.

Although Lincoln Financial benefits from procedural advantages under ERISA, their denials are not immune from challenge. The more prepared you are from the start, the better positioned you’ll be—whether during the appeal process or in court.

6. Unique Aspects of Handling Claims with Lincoln Financial Group

Summary: Lincoln Financial employs a structured and systematic approach to evaluating disability claims, often emphasizing cost control over claimant support. This section explores the company’s emphasis on standardized forms, the role of its internal medical consultants, and the particular difficulties faced by professionals, part-time workers, and those with subjective or fluctuating conditions.

While many disability insurers share similar claim evaluation tactics, Lincoln Financial Group stands out for several distinctive procedural and operational features. Understanding these unique aspects is critical for claimants seeking long-term disability (LTD) benefits from Lincoln, especially in anticipating obstacles and tailoring an effective legal strategy.

6.1. Lincoln’s Mandatory Two-Level ERISA Appeal Process

One of the most important procedural differences with Lincoln Financial Group is its requirement of two mandatory administrative appeals for ERISA-governed LTD claims. Most insurers require only one internal appeal before a claimant is allowed to file a lawsuit. Lincoln’s two-tiered system means that:

• Claimants must prepare two separate appeals before they can pursue judicial review.

• This prolongs the pre-litigation timeline, delaying potential access to court by several months.

• Lincoln has two opportunities to build its defense record by supplementing the file with internal reviews, vocational analyses, or new physician opinions.

• Many claimants are unaware of the second appeal requirement and may inadvertently forfeit their right to sue if they fail to exhaust both levels.

The structure makes it absolutely essential for claimants to approach the first appeal with litigation in mind, using it to build the strongest possible record from the outset.

6.2. Effects of the Liberty Mutual Acquisition

Lincoln’s 2018 acquisition of Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston marked a turning point in its disability insurance operations. This $3.3 billion transaction expanded Lincoln’s book of business dramatically, bringing in a large portfolio of group policies and claimants who had previously dealt with Liberty Mutual. The aftermath introduced several practical complications:

• Increased claim denials were reported by attorneys and policyholders following the acquisition, suggesting a possible shift toward stricter internal review procedures.

• Legacy Liberty policies are now handled under Lincoln’s claim protocols, which may differ from past expectations in terms of documentation standards, surveillance frequency, or appeal timelines.

• Some policies and procedures appear to reflect a blend of Liberty and Lincoln practices, creating confusion for claimants who had previously received benefits under Liberty’s system.

For claimants who started under Liberty Mutual but were transitioned to Lincoln Financial Group, understanding the new administrative expectations is critical to avoiding technical pitfalls.

6.3. Emphasis on "Absence Management" and Return-to-Work Programs

Lincoln Financial Group often presents itself not merely as a disability insurer, but as a workforce management partner. Its claims operation places strong emphasis on:

• Early return-to-work initiatives, including vocational rehabilitation and modified work programs.

• Partial disability benefits, structured to incentivize claimants to attempt part-time or limited work.

While these offerings may be beneficial to claimants who are genuinely able to return in some capacity, they also create risk:

• Return-to-work attempts can be used against the claimant, especially if Lincoln later argues that the claimant demonstrated an ability to perform “any occupation.”

• Some return-to-work encouragement may feel more like pressure, particularly when paired with surveillance or repeated FCEs.

• If a work attempt fails, claimants may struggle to reinstate full benefits without clear medical evidence documenting why it was unsuccessful.

In short, while return-to-work efforts are publicly framed as supportive, they may also be used to justify benefit terminations.

6.4. Strategic Use of Surveillance and Consultant Reviews

Lincoln appears to rely heavily on a multi-pronged evidence-gathering approach during claim evaluations, especially during transitions (e.g., from “own occupation” to “any occupation”). This often includes:

• Coordinated use of surveillance (physical and digital), typically timed around medical exams or known claim review periods.

• Repeated “paper-only” medical reviews, sometimes by multiple in-house or outsourced consultants.

• Functional Capacity Evaluations (FCEs) and vocational assessments, used in tandem to suggest residual work capacity.

The coordination of these tools suggests a systematic strategy aimed at terminating benefits, particularly when benefits have been in place for months or years.

6.5. Perceived Rigor in Policy Interpretation and Claim Review

Compared to some competitors, Lincoln Financial Group is often viewed by legal practitioners as particularly strict in its interpretation of policy language and its insistence on objective documentation. Some common observations include:

• A strong emphasis on objective evidence, even for conditions that are inherently subjective, such as fibromyalgia or long COVID.

• A tendency to favor vocational consultants’ findings over those of treating physicians.

• Use of technical or procedural reasons (such as pre-existing condition exclusions or inconsistent paperwork) to justify denials.

This strict approach may not be readily apparent in Lincoln’s public-facing materials, which present the company as supportive and responsive. The divergence between marketing language and internal procedure is a pattern repeatedly noted by both claimants and attorneys.

6.6. Regulatory Scrutiny and Algorithmic Tools

Lincoln has also drawn regulatory attention in recent years:

• In 2015, Lincoln Financial Group paid over $50 million to settle claims-handling violations with the New York Department of Financial Services, including delays and unfair practices.

• In 2024, Lincoln reached a settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor over its evidence of insurability failures in life insurance claims.

While not always directly related to LTD claims, these actions suggest underlying operational issues that may affect disability claims as well.

Additionally, Lincoln has announced an expanded partnership with EvolutionIQ, a company that provides AI-driven claims management tools. While touted as a way to enhance claim outcomes, there is concern that algorithmic targeting could increase scrutiny or fast-track denials based on predictive models rather than human-centered review.

7. Strategies for Success When Dealing with Lincoln Financial Group

Summary: Successfully navigating a Lincoln LTD claim requires strong medical documentation, consistent treatment, and detailed occupational evidence. This section delivers actionable guidance on how to anticipate Lincoln’s tactics, meet all procedural requirements, and present a persuasive claim or appeal. Legal help early in the process can be the difference between approval and denial.

Filing or appealing a long-term disability (LTD) claim with Lincoln Financial Group requires more than simply filling out forms and submitting doctor’s notes. Given the insurer’s rigorous review processes, two-tiered ERISA appeal structure, and use of surveillance, paper-only reviews, and vocational assessments, claimants must approach the process with strategy, documentation, and foresight. Below are key strategies that can make the difference between approval and denial.

7.1. Understand Your Policy—Every Word Matters

Before submitting a claim or appeal, request the full LTD policy or certificate of coverage. Relying on the summary plan description (SPD) is not enough.

• Review the definitions of "Disability," "Own Occupation," and "Any Occupation".

• Identify any limitations (e.g., 24-month mental health cap), elimination periods, and pre-existing condition clauses.

• Understand how offsets (like SSDI or workers' comp) will affect your monthly benefit.

• Know the deadlines for claims, appeals, and submission of supporting documents.

You cannot challenge a denial effectively without knowing exactly how your policy defines eligibility and exclusion.

7.2. Build a Medical Record That Anticipates Pushback

Lincoln is known to demand “objective” medical evidence, even for conditions where that standard is unrealistic. Your goal is to present a complete and compelling medical narrative.

• Ensure consistency: Your medical records, physician statements, and daily activity descriptions should all align. Inconsistencies will be used against you.

• Ask treating doctors to write narrative letters that address:

• Your diagnoses

• Specific symptoms

• Functional limitations (e.g., can’t sit for 30 minutes, cognitive fog, etc.)

• Why those limitations prevent work under your policy’s definition

• Where possible, include objective testing: MRIs, EMGs, CPETs, neuropsych evaluations, or FCEs (especially if obtained independently).

• For conditions like fibromyalgia or Long COVID, include symptom logs, functional assessments, and third-party observations (family, colleagues).

A paper-only review by Lincoln’s consultants will never reflect the full reality of your condition. You have to preemptively fill in the gaps.

7.3. Master Lincoln’s Two-Appeal ERISA Structure

Lincoln often requires two internal ERISA appeals before a claimant can sue. Treat both as legal briefs, not casual rebuttals.

• After a denial, immediately request your entire claim file. Review it carefully to identify:

• The specific reasons for denial

• Any consultant reports, IME/FCE results, vocational assessments, or surveillance

• Prepare a point-by-point response to each denial reason. Use medical evidence, vocational data, and legal citations where helpful.

• Submit all evidence within the 180-day deadline for each appeal. Courts rarely forgive missed ERISA deadlines.

• Build the record like you’re already in litigation. Federal courts often limit their review to what’s in the file when the final denial is issued.

Each appeal is an opportunity to set up your case for success, whether through reversal or future litigation.

7.4. Strategically Address Lincoln’s Surveillance and Vocational Tactics

Lincoln routinely uses surveillance and vocational tools as grounds for denial or termination—especially around the 24-month mark when claims transition to the “any occupation” standard.

• Surveillance:

• Be mindful of behavior in public and social media. Innocuous moments (carrying groceries, attending a family event) may be misrepresented as evidence of work capacity.

• Avoid inconsistencies between your activity and what you’ve reported.

• If you’re surveilled, request the full surveillance file and respond with medical or contextual evidence that explains what Lincoln observed.

• Vocational Assessments (TSAs):

• Scrutinize any job descriptions used in TSAs. Are they accurate reflections of your experience and limitations?

• If the TSA suggests alternative jobs, ask: Are these realistic given your skills, education, and restrictions?

• When necessary, obtain an independent vocational evaluation to rebut Lincoln’s findings.

These tactics are often designed to support pre-planned denials. The earlier you identify and counter them, the stronger your case becomes.

7.5. Avoid Procedural Pitfalls

Lincoln may deny claims based on technical errors rather than substantive medical issues. Avoid giving them the opportunity.

• Track all deadlines: appeals (usually 180 days), supplemental document requests, medical updates, etc.

• Submit documents using trackable methods (certified mail, secure portals) and retain copies.

• Document all interactions: date, time, representative’s name, and content of communication.

Many claimants lose on avoidable issues like missing deadlines, failing to complete forms properly, or not responding to Lincoln’s document requests. Organization and vigilance are essential.

7.6. Consider Legal Representation Early

Lincoln is a well-resourced insurer with teams of in-house medical reviewers, vocational consultants, and legal counsel. To level the playing field:

• Engage an experienced ERISA attorney as early as possible—ideally before submitting your first appeal.

• An attorney can help:

• Analyze the policy

• Coordinate with treating doctors

• Submit compelling appeal letters and evidence

• Respond to IMEs, FCEs, or surveillance reports

• Preserve your rights for litigation

Given Lincoln’s mandatory two-appeal process, every round of correspondence matters. A qualified attorney ensures each step is handled with precision and strategy.

8. Conclusion: Securing Your Lincoln Financial Group LTD Benefits & How Dorian Law PC Can Help

Summary: Facing Lincoln Financial Group after an LTD denial can be daunting—but Dorian Law PC brings targeted experience to help you fight back. This section outlines how our firm builds strong appeals, challenges biased reviews, and represents clients in litigation when needed. We know Lincoln’s tactics and how to overcome them. Contact us for a free consultation.

Navigating a long-term disability (LTD) claim with Lincoln Financial Group is not just a matter of paperwork—it’s a battle of preparation, evidence, and endurance. As one of the most prominent group disability insurers in the country, Lincoln Financial employs sophisticated strategies to minimize payouts: selective medical reviews, burdensome evidence standards, IMEs, surveillance, and a uniquely demanding two-appeal ERISA process. For claimants, especially those struggling with chronic illness or subjective-symptom conditions like fibromyalgia, chronic pain, mental illness, or Long COVID, the process can feel overwhelming, adversarial, and deeply unfair.

But you don’t have to face this challenge alone.

At Dorian Law PC, we have deep experience standing up to Lincoln Financial Group and know exactly how their systems work—from denial triggers to litigation strategy. We help claimants build strong cases from the start, and we’re here to step in at any point in the process: before the initial claim, during the appeal stages, or once litigation becomes necessary.

How Dorian Law PC Helps Claimants Like You

• Policy and Denial Analysis
  We dissect your policy line by line and decode Lincoln’s denial rationale to identify errors, inconsistencies, and strategic weaknesses.

• Evidence Development and Medical Strategy
  We coordinate directly with your doctors to gather clear, policy-specific medical documentation that can stand up to Lincoln’s biased reviews and selective interpretations. We help you obtain FCEs, neuropsych testing, or vocational reports when needed—and make sure it all fits within your appeal timeline.

• Appeal Strategy and Execution
  Our appeals are not generic letters. We create customized, comprehensive legal responses backed by ERISA precedent, tailored to counter Lincoln’s specific review tactics. We ensure the administrative record is complete and litigation-ready, maximizing your chances both during the appeals and in court.

• Claim Management and Protection
  We handle all communication with Lincoln so you don’t have to. We protect you from missteps, preserve your legal rights, and give you peace of mind so you can focus on your health.

• Litigation When Necessary
  If Lincoln denies your claim after both appeals, we are fully prepared to take them to federal court. We know the tactics they use, and we build our litigation strategy from day one.

Don’t Wait—The Clock Is Already Running

If your claim has been denied, delayed, terminated, or you're facing the 24-month “any occupation” cutoff, every day counts. Lincoln’s appeal deadlines are unforgiving, and building a solid administrative record takes time.

Let Dorian Law PC guide you through the process with clarity, strength, and strategy.

Contact us today to schedule a free, confidential consultation. We’ll review your situation, explain your rights, and help you develop a clear path forward.