Minnesota Court Rules Long Term Disability Policies Must Contain Mental Health Parity

Long term disability policies in Minnesota that do not offer parity for mental and physical disabilities are in violation of the state's Human Rights Act, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled June 26. The case was brought by Gloria Kolton, who sued Anoka County on the grounds that the county's long term disability policy provided coverage until retirement age for employees unable to work because of a physical disability but only two years of coverage for those with mental disabilities, unless they were hospitalized. Although the county has since changed its policy to provide the same level of benefits for physical and mental illnesses, Frederick Finch, a lawyer for the insurance agent who sold the policy to Anoka County, said that provisions limiting the time of benefits for mental conditions are "common" in long term disability policies. He added that the appellate court's decision is "at odds with federal court opinions on the Americans with Disabilities Act." But appellate court Judge Robert Schumacher said although that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines that "allow distinctions in health insurance plans" also "draw a distinction for fringe benefits such as long term disability insurance," these distinctions "constitute discrimination in the most basic sense of the word." Attorney James Roegge, who also represented the insurance company, said the decision could affect employers' decisions on whether to offer long term disability benefits (Quinlivan, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 6/27).