CALL 503.680.4317

7105 SW Varns Street, Suite 250
Portland, Oregon 97223

Slide 1
Ralph Wiser
Attorney at Law
With over 30 years experience, Ralph Wiser handles cases in a wide range of areas, including personal injury, disability, employment, trial and litigation.
Ralph Wiser
Slide 2
Personal Injury
An experienced personal injury attorney can help you navigate the shoals of ensuring that you are able to get timely medical services, compensation while you are not able to work, and full compensation from the at-fault party.
Personal Injury
Slide 3
" Honest hardworking and ethical, just a few simple words that help sum up the kind of attorney you will have... "
– Daniel E., Molalla, OR.
"Ralph Wiser represented me in an injury lawsuit, even though it was an unusual case. He was thorough, diligent, and always had my best interest at heart..."
– Scott Lee
"Ralph Wiser’s experience and expertise in all facets of labor law, workers’ compensation and disability claims make him my ‘go-to guy’ on all my complicated legal cases. Ralph crafts solutions where others see only road blocks."
– David Fiore, UniServ consultant
previous arrow
next arrow

Stone v. Bayer Corp. Long Term Disability Plan

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3440, 61838 (USDC Or. 2010), affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on appeal by the long term disability Plan, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15105 (9th Cir. 2011)

pilsStone became disabled from a combination of conditions, including traumatic brain injury, mold-caused illnesses, allergic reactions, pulmonary compromise and cancers, while employed as a customer service representative by Bayer. When Bayer finally denied her application for disability benefits on the basis that she was disabled from work stress — a condition excluded from coverage by the Plan — she sued Bayer in United States District Court of Oregon. The Court reversed Bayer’s denials and ordered Bayer to pay her back benefits, noting that Stone’s disability was not the result of work stress, and also that the Plan had failed to identify the exclusion for work stress in the administrative process of considering the claim.

After a relatively short time, Bayer denied Stone’s claim again, claiming that she was no longer disabled, taking the position that she was never disabled and was entitled to benefits only because the Court had entered a judgment in her favor.

Thus Stone was forced to sue Bayer again, in the federal court in Portland. After receiving evidence and argument, the Court again ruled that Stone was entitled to long term disability benefits and entered a judgment in her favor.

Bayer appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is headquartered in San Francisco. After briefing, but before oral argument to the Ninth Circuit, the Court upheld the judgment in favor of Stone.