LTD care can be based in a nursing home or other care facility or at home. As this type of permanent care can be extensive and costly, this type of insurance more than pays for itself when claims are granted, and defraying the cost of long-term care can protect a policyholder’s financial stability and assets.

Long-term disability care can include skilled nursing care, intermediate care, and/or custodial care. Have your lawyer review your policy carefully for specific restrictions and provisions:

- Skilled nursing – under doctor’s orders, skilled nursing is usually mandated for severe injuries or illness and usually requires around the clock care, either in home, or in a facility

- Intermediate nursing care – usually ordered for injuries or illnesses that are somewhat stable and requires less specialized, daily care

- Custodial care – “personal care” patients are given assistance with routine daily activities, but do not need daily medical assistance

If you or a loved one has become disabled and need to make a long-term disability claim against an insurance company, you should hire an experienced lawyer who is well versed in LTD claim disputes law and contract language. If your claim has been denied, a long-term disability lawyer  can help you sort through the details of your contract to figure out how much protection you are entitled to.

If your LTD claim dispute has been denied, you need the legal guidance by an expert lawyers.
There are time limits to all claims and any delay in proceeding may be subject to a deadline. You should not delay in proceeding with your claim or obtaining legal advice to clarify these deadlines.

For example those with diabetes could still claim a disability that diabetes was controlled through medications, and without them they would suffer major life activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

The American Diabetes Association has expressed great concern over the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act claiming that it unfairly constrains diabetics who are trying to control their condition with medication. If a diabetic does not attempt a medical remedy of the condition, the ADA does not apply, since in most instances, diabetes can be improved with medical intervention.

However, by successfully controlling a diabetic condition with medication and the individual is not restricted from a major life activity, then the individual also loses the protection of the ADA. Complications of diabetes, such as diabetic retinopathy or diabetic neuropathy can in themselves affect a person’s ability to work. An employee suffering from diabetes might require an individualized break schedule in order to check blood sugar, take insulin, or eat, which in turn might fall under the category of a “reasonable accommodation” on the part of the employer.

Surprisingly, in a large number of diabetes cases brought before the judicial system, the employer actually admits that the action being challenged was taken because of the person’s diabetes. The case then revolves around whether the person was covered by the law (under the definition of disability) and, if so, whether the person”s diabetes would create a direct threat to others. However, in other cases the employer doesn’t admit that it was motivated by the person’s diabetes and, in such cases, the employee needs to provide direct or indirect evidence that proves that discrimination did occur.

Due to the ruling handed down in 1999, the American Diabetes Association advises members to look at both federal and state laws. Many states have disability discrimination laws that are more comprehensive than federal law.