Dickstein Shapiro Lawyer Must Use Name to Sue Unum for Benefits

A Dickstein Shapiro LLP associate attorney can’t anonymously sue Unum Life Insurance Co. for disability benefits, a federal judge ruled.

The lawyer didn’t have a sufficiently compelling reason to keep her full name secret when suing the insurer over disputed disability payments, the judge said Feb. 15. The lawyer said she may later have trouble finding work in the legal field if potential employers can learn about her disability, but the judge said this fear wasn’t severe enough to justify granting the lawyer anonymity.

The judge said the lawyer failed to show that any prospective legal employer, or the legal community generally, is concerned about “past cognitive disabilities” of job candidates: “Plaintiff surmises that law firms are likely to reject her job application because of her medical condition. Plaintiff has no evidence that legal employers routinely search court docket sheets to obtain information about prospective hires. Plaintiff’s fear of future harm is simply too speculative to be objectively reasonable.”

This isn’t the first time an attorney seeking disability benefits wanted to do so anonymously. In 2016, a federal judge in California denied anonymity to a law firm partner who feared that “certain attorneys” would delve into his case to learn about his personal life and his firm’s business. By contrast, courts have been more willing to grant anonymity when the benefits being sought relate to a condition like mental illness or HIV.

Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon wrote the decision. He instructed the lawyer to file a new complaint using her full name within two weeks.

Harrang Long Gary Rudnick PC represented the lawyer. Kilmer Voorhees & Laurick PC represented Unum.

The case is A.G. v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 BL 51417, D. Or., No. 3:17-cv-01414-HZ, order denying request to proceed anonymously 2/14/18.