Appreciation of the ‘Subtle Changes’: Perspectives of Korean American Parents Raising Children with Developmental Disabilities
AbstractThis qualitative study explored the experiences of Korean American (KA) immigrant parents of children with development disabilities (DDs) for their children with DDs living in the southeastern U.S. Using the Contextual Model of Family Stress as an organizing theoretical framework, we examined differences based on cultural characteristics, parents’ gender, child’s age, and diagnosis. Twenty KA parents of children with DDs participated in the study. We used grounded theory methods to analyze the data. Four major themes emerged including source of difficulties, source of support, perceptions of developmental progress, and personal transformations. The results indicated that KA parents shared similar experiences, but they varied depending on internal and external factors. Despite higher risk of stress, participants reported reframing challenges positively and using different types of support. However, parents who recently imm igrated, lacked spousal support, and had children with severe symptoms appeared more vulnerable. We discuss implications for professionals working with this population.
LAFAYETTE, La. - A disability insurer's termination of disability benefits based on its finding that the claimant was not disabled from any occupation was not arbitrary and capricious because the insurer considered the opinion of the claimant's treating physician and the insurer based its decision on substantial medical evidence, a Louisiana federal judge said Nov. 5 (Darrell Goodman v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 18-623, W.D. La., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193123).
COVINGTON, Ky. - A Kentucky federal judge on Nov. 5 denied a disability claimant's motion for judgment on the administrative record after determining that the claimant failed to prove that she is incapable of performing any reasonable occupation as defined by the disability plan (Lisa Meiman v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., No. 18-75, E.D. Ky., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191448).
CINCINNATI - The majority of a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 31 vacated a district court's judgment in favor of a disability insurer after determining that the insurer's denial of disability benefits was arbitrary and capricious because the insurer's decision was not the result of a deliberate, principled reasoning process regarding the claimant's ability to perform her job as a nurse (Susan Card v. Principal Life Insurance Co., No. 18-6095, 6th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32573).
SAN DIEGO - A district court did not err in entering judgment in favor of a disability insurer because the disability claimant failed to prove that she was unable to perform the duties of her own occupation while she was still employed by her former employer and because the district court properly considered all of the claimant's evidence, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Oct. 18 (Kelly Demko v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, No. 18-55428, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31102).
MADISON, Wis. - A Wisconsin federal judge on Oct. 29 awarded a disability claimant short-term disability (STD) benefits after determining that a disability insurer failed to consider all of the job duties required of the claimant, rather than the modified job duties performed by the claimant, when it denied her claim for benefits (Catherine A. Mathews v. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., No. 18-46, W.D. Wisc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186986).
ATLANTA - A disability insurer's denial of a long-term disability claim for substance abuse was not arbitrary and capricious because the medical evidence supports the insurer's finding that the pre-existing condition exclusion applied as a bar to benefits, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said Nov. 7 (Anthony J. Ferrizzi v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., No. 18-11803, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33350).
FRESNO, Calif. - A disability insurer acted in bad faith and breached its contract in terminating a claimant's long-term disability (LTD) benefits because the insurer's termination was not reasonable and not based on reliable medical evidence, the claimant alleges in an Oct. 15 complaint filed in California federal court (Jennifer Sims v. Life Insurance Company of North America, No. 19-1460, E.D. Calif.).
LAS VEGAS - Following the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to remand a disability claimant's suit to consider the source of the claimant's disability, a Nevada federal judge on Oct. 29 granted the parties' stipulation for dismissal of the suit with prejudice (Miae Decovich v. Venetian Casino Resort LLC, et al., No. 11-872, D. Nev.).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A California federal magistrate judge on Nov. 1 recommended that judgment be entered in favor of a disability claim because the denial of a claim for an extension of short-term disability (STD) benefits was not an abuse of discretion and is supported by the medical evidence (Jerome Clay v. AT&T Umbrella Benefit Plan No. 3, No. 17-749, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190308).
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A disability claimant's negligence and misrepresentation allegations against an insurance broker can proceed because the broker owes an independent duty to the disability claimant, a Kansas federal judge said in refusing to dismiss the misrepresentation and negligence claims (Robert P. Garver v. Principal Life Insurance Co. et al., No. 19-2354, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180603).