⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Seventh Circuit hears McKenzie Jones's dispute with Unum over long-term disability benefits. Jones worked for Whole Foods and stopped working, reporting back pain. He sought benefits through his employer's insurance plan, but Unum ended his long-term payments. The plan did not ask only whether he could work. It also said he must be under the regular care of a physician. That requirement became decisive in court. A district judge found that Jones had not shown the required care and ruled for Unum, without deciding which occupation applied or whether Jones could perform its duties. Jones says Unum did not clearly identify the regular-care requirement as a separate reason for denying benefits until litigation. References to treatment in a denial letter, he argues, are not the same as giving timely, specific notice of that reason. Unum disagrees and argues that the judge had to make a fresh, independent decision about entitlement under the plan. Listen for the difference between adding evidence about a claim and adding a new reason to deny it. If an insurer's explanation was inadequate, what should a court do about it? And can a notice requirement limit the grounds a judge considers without changing the insurance policy's conditions? Those questions, rather than a general medical judgment about back pain, frame this appeal.

McKenzie Jones v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (No. 26-1432) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.