Death by Self-Administered Dialysis is Excluded
Post 5173
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvp3bKQF and at https://lnkd.in/gWWeqD7s, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5150 posts.
Clear & Unambiguous Exclusion Effective
Dana Kleinsteuber died while administering her own dialysis at home. MetLife now agrees that tragedy was an accident but refused to pay because of an exclusion for losses caused or contributed to by the treatment of a physical illness.
In Charles M. Kleinsteuber v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, CIVIL No. 23-3494 (JRT/DTS), United States District Court, D. Minnesota (August 19, 2025) the USDC was faced with the interpretation of an exclusion in an ERISA plan.
KEY FACTS:
Dana Kleinsteuber’s Death:
Dana Kleinsteuber, diagnosed with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), was self-administering dialysis at home when she suffered acute blood loss and died. The cause of death was listed as ESRD and natural causes.
Insurance Claims:
Charles Kleinsteuber, Dana’s husband, filed claims for both life insurance and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance. MetLife approved the life insurance claim but denied the AD&D claim, stating that the death was not accidental and was caused by the treatment of ESRD.
Legal Action:
Charles Kleinsteuber filed an ERISA action to recover the AD&D benefit, arguing that Dana’s death was accidental.
LEGAL POINTS:
Policy Exclusion:
The AD&D policy excluded coverage for losses caused or contributed to by the treatment of a physical illness. MetLife argued that Dana’s death fell under this exclusion because it was related to her dialysis treatment.
Court’s Analysis:
The court applied the abuse of discretion standard to determine if MetLife’s interpretation of the policy exclusion was reasonable. The court considered several factors, including whether MetLife’s interpretation was consistent with the goals of the plan, whether it rendered any language in the plan meaningless, and whether it conflicted with ERISA’s substantive or procedural requirements.
To determine whether MetLife abused its discretion in denying the claim, the Court performed a two-step analysis, asking (1) whether the insurer’s interpretation of the Plan language is reasonable, and (2) whether application of that interpretation to the facts is supported by substantial evidence.
The Policy excludes coverage when “treatment” of a physical illness “contributed to” the insured’s “loss.” MetLife interprets that language to mean that a person who accidentally bleeds out from an open port during self-administered dialysis is excluded from coverage.
When determining reasonableness of an ERISA policy interpretation, courts will interpret consistently with the goals of the Plan. When an administrator has offered a reasonable interpretation, courts may not insert their own interpretation because under an abuse of discretion review, courts are not tasked with determining the best or preferable interpretation.
The primary goal of an AD&D plan is to provide an employees’ benefit and welfare plan for its members. When paired with life insurance the goal is to increase the amount of recovery over the face amount of the policy when death is from an accident.
MetLife adequately explained the specific reasons for the denial in its initial denial letter. In that letter, MetLife explained that the death was not accidental because Dana’s Death Certificate listed her death as resulting from ESRD and natural causes. It also stated that even if the death were an accident, the policy exclusion applied because the police report showed that Dana passed away from a medical emergency involving a dialysis machine.
MetLife, therefore, complied with the regulation requirements in issuing its initial denial.As long as there is substantial evidence to show that Dana’s dialysis treatment contributed to her death, MetLife did not abuse its discretion in denying Kleinsteuber’s claim.
CONCLUSION
The USDC found that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in determining that the dialysis treatment contributed to Dana’s death, which triggered a policy exclusion. Therefore, the Court denied Kleinsteuber’s Motion for Summary Judgment and granted MetLife’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The court found that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in denying the AD&D claim, as there was substantial evidence that Dana’s dialysis treatment contributed to her death.
ZALMA OPINION
ERISA is a program created by federal law and is interpreted by federal courts. When there is a legitimate, clear and unambiguous requirement that the Accidental Death policy required that the death is accidental and the loss was not caused or contributed to by the treatment of a physical illness. Since dialysis is the treatment of an illness and contributed to the death the exclusion applied.
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the ¬¬¬Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
