Source: evidence/google_drive_download_20260415/download_extracted/0007 - Metlife Emails (RL_6018-6031).pdf
Pages: 14
Bates Range: RL_006018 through RL_006031
Date Analyzed: 2026-04-15
This PDF contains two distinct email threads from arbitration discovery:
Full Body:
Good afternoon,
We are in the process of reviewing a claim for Long Term Disability benefits for Mr. Richard Litman under Claim # 692009108889.
Has Mr. Litman received group Short Term Disability (STD) benefits? If so, what is the amount, frequency paid and end date of the STD benefits?
Has Mr. Litman received salary continuance? If so, what is the amount, frequency paid and end date of the salary continuance?
Can you please send us a copy of the Mr. Litman's job description at your earliest convenience so we may review to determine if the claimant satisfies the definition of Disability as outlined in the Plan?
Sender: Matthew Grey | Claims Specialist | Long Term Disability | Global Operations | MetLife, 33 Boston Post Road West, Suite 170, Marlborough, MA 01752 | (office) 860.895.4354
Key Data Points: - LTD Claim Number: 692009108889 - MetLife sent this directly to Goldberg (as employer), NOT to Litman - Three specific questions asked: STD benefits, salary continuance, job description - Confirms MetLife was actively reviewing the disability claim as of Sept 15, 2020
Full Body (verbatim):
Josh,
Let me check with Steven Dell.
One issue is the paychecks I am receiving.
Here are some thoughts.
The wages paid from the law firm after the date of disability (6/15/20) are subject to reconciliation -- delayed by Jerry's illness, my illness and the pandemic.
Our mutual intent is to ensure I am paid wages due me through the date of disability, and, to the extent wages are paid after the date of disability, wages were pre-disability wages from during the pandemic, paid later in time by agreement.
We are working on the reconciliation now and if wages paid after the date of disability are more than due per above, I will return the money.
I will be receiving money from the firm for the federal service mark registration in installments for 5 years subject to the assignment we are finalizing now.
The job description is along the lines as I provided to you. These are all material duties of my position.
As of 6/15/20+/- when I started having my left hand cramping and right leg problems again, I was not able to do with reliability and necessary independence the duties of my occupation.
Full Body (verbatim):
Rich,
Thanks for getting back to me. Please do let me know what Steven Dell says. The paychecks you have been receiving are the biggest issue I see also, it is something I have a concern about.
If Steven Dell is okay with the explanation that the wages paid from 6/15/20 on are based on amounts due pre-disability according to our mutual interest and agreement, are subject to reconciliation, and will potentially be paid back by you based on the results of the reconciliation, I am as well.
There is the question about the end date of the salary continuance. I am not sure if it would be a good idea to leave it open-ended based on amounts due pre-disability subject to reconciliation again.
I also do not know the impact of saying you will be receiving money from the firm for the federal service mark registration in installments for 5 years subject to the assignment we are finalizing now. I could see this potentially being an issue with MetLife for one thing. For another, we have to think hard about locking in payments of a set amount regardless of true amounts that would be owed. I would think whatever we say needs to be consistent with the overall strategy. Hopefully Steven Dell can provide his thoughts in not too long.
For the job description, I am pretty sure I have that from our previous emails. I will have to look for it but it should not be too hard to find.
Full Body (verbatim -- this is the most important email in the set):
Josh,
Steven says answers are fine.
As discussed, our agreement is silent about disability, but if we treat it like death, triggering the 5 years of payments, my W-2 wages ended on the date of disability 6/15/20.
My explanation about the handling of the paychecks since 6/16/20 is that W-2 wages were delayed some by agreement per pandemic, and by year end we will determine collected revenue on matters originated by me on or before 6/15/20, and we will make adjustments -- either way to 2020 W-2 pre-disability wages -- by a one time payment or other adjustment relating back to the 6/15/20 disability date.
Our contract provides for the transfer of the Litman Law name and federal registration and for 5 years of payments of an undetermined sum based on 20 percent of revenues after my death (or disability) by our agreement.
We don't need to go into our contract details with insurers. Per Steven, a basic bill of sale/assignment for the Litman Law Offices, Ltd name and federal registration for payments for 5 years as provided by our 2017 agreement is likely all they need.
While we get money from the Arabic clients on a faster track during the pandemic, we could delay the start of the 5 years of payments to 1/1/21 ending on 12/31/25. What isn't W-2 wages in 2020 (i.e., payments for matters originated on 6/16/21 or afterwards) will be in the first payment in January 2021. Periodic payments thereafter.
Because I am not dead, we can maintain my official status as Senior Counsel -- without duties while on disability -- and without wages as of 6/15/20. Steven says maintaining employment while getting Met Life payments is preferred.
Health/125 benefits are often paid by an employer when an employee is disabled and with premiums deducted from MetLife's $100000 max. I will need to check On specifics.
This is the simplest solution which we can document to our mutual satisfaction In sync with our agreement.
Please consider. My MetLife questions relate to this point and applying for SSDI or they won't pay.
Full Body (verbatim):
Rich,
I am glad to have the feedback from Steven. I will get back to MetLife with the update.
As for how we treat the disability, I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020, while maintaining your Senior Counsel status. At this point, since MetLife has not asked for any supporting documentation, I am just going to go back with the answers to their questions, keeping it as short as possible.
Clearly the specifics/documentation need to be worked out but this framework seems okay to me.
Full Body (verbatim):
Good... thanks Josh. The first doctor certification was submitted to MetLife today. My trust in you and Jerry is well founded. Who would have ever thought a patent lawyer named Josh Goldberg would be front and center in the Arab world? What a thing? Rich
Key Details from Open Enrollment: - Medical: HMO plan, employer covers employee-only coverage - Dental/Vision: MetLife (transitioning to Resourcing Edge MetLife plans) - 401k: Administered by Voya (separate from Resourcing Edge) - FSA: Health + Dependent Care flex spending accounts offered - HR Consultant: Jen Siegel (jsiegel@nathlaw.com, 703-362-8297)
Both Litman and Goldberg explicitly agreed in writing to treat disability like death under the Combination Agreement:
Why this matters: Goldberg's own written agreement to "treat it like death" + "instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020" confirms that (a) the agreement's death/buyout provisions were triggered; (b) the 5-year payment period ran from 6/15/2020 through 6/15/2025; and (c) Litman's W-2 wages officially ended 6/15/2020. Goldberg later argued in arbitration that the agreement terminated 6/15/2020 -- this email shows the parties actually agreed to TRIGGER the buyout provisions, not terminate the relationship.
Litman states: "Our contract provides for the transfer of the Litman Law name and federal registration and for 5 years of payments of an undetermined sum based on 20 percent of revenues after my death (or disability) by our agreement."
This is an explicit contemporaneous written statement of the 20% formula from September 2020 -- 2.5 years BEFORE the arbitration. Cross-references Finding #66 (20% rule validated as NGM operational baseline) and Finding #78 (March 2021 "CASE ACT" admissions thread confirming "the 80% due NGM").
The parties agreed to characterize the ongoing payments as asset sale proceeds for the federal service mark registration, NOT as wages:
Why this matters for the current case: 1. The "asset sale" characterization was designed to make the 20% revenue payments NON-OFFSETTABLE against MetLife LTD benefits (asset sale proceeds are not "salary continuance" or "other income" under standard LTD policies) 2. Both parties AGREED to this characterization -- Litman proposed it, Goldberg accepted it 3. Steven Dell (disability insurance advisor) approved the framework 4. This is the genesis of the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment referenced in Finding #4 -- the assignment was being "finalized" as of September 2020
The parties agreed that post-6/15/2020 paychecks would be characterized as pre-disability wages paid late due to pandemic delays:
Goldberg expressly agreed that post-disability paychecks were reconciliation items, not ongoing wages.
Why this matters: Goldberg's own written agreement establishes that Litman's "Senior Counsel" title was maintained (a) for MetLife purposes; (b) "without duties"; and (c) "without wages." This destroys the defense that Litman's name use was authorized by his Senior Counsel role -- the role was explicitly agreed to be titleonly, with no duties and no wages.
Discovery target: Steven Dell's complete communications with Litman and Goldberg regarding the MetLife claim and the asset sale characterization.
Litman states: "Health/125 benefits are often paid by an employer when an employee is disabled and with premiums deducted from MetLife's $100000 max."
This establishes MetLife's LTD maximum benefit at $100,000 (likely annual). Cross-ref existing knowledge that the private disability policy "paid 24 months no questions" per project memory.
Goldberg wrote: "The paychecks you have been receiving are the biggest issue I see also, it is something I have a concern about."
This is a written admission that Goldberg KNEW the post-disability paychecks were problematic. He was aware that continuing to pay Litman as a W-2 employee while Litman collected LTD benefits could create an offset issue -- yet the paychecks continued.
MetLife sent the claim inquiry directly to Goldberg as the employer representative. Goldberg was the one who would "get back to MetLife with the update." This confirms Goldberg controlled the employer-side narrative to MetLife and had direct authority over how Litman's employment status and compensation were characterized to the insurer.
Litman: "My MetLife questions relate to this point and applying for SSDI or they won't pay."
MetLife required SSDI application as a condition of LTD benefit payment. Cross-ref project memory: "$106K returned to insurer on SS approval" -- when SSDI was approved, MetLife recovered its offset.
| Existing Finding | Connection |
|---|---|
| Finding #77 (Disability Concealment Directive, June 2020): Goldberg: "my strong preference is that we keep this between you and I" | The MetLife thread is 3 months later -- Goldberg is now actively managing the disability claim while simultaneously concealing it from clients and staff |
| Finding #87 (Exhibit K, June 7-8 2020 Genesis): "I have never put as much trust in other people as I have in you and Jerry" | Litman's 9/17/2020 email echoes this: "My trust in you and Jerry is well founded" -- the trust relationship was at its peak when these arrangements were made |
| Finding #78 (March 2021 "CASE ACT" admissions): "$25,000/month as a W-2" | The MetLife emails explain WHY the $25K/month was later structured as a W-2 advance -- Steven Dell advised maintaining employment status |
| Finding #86 (Exhibit R, Contractual Kill-Shot): Assignment transferred service marks but carved out personal name | The MetLife emails show the assignment was being "finalized" in Sept 2020 -- the same assignment that explicitly excluded Litman's personal name |
| Finding #66 (20% Rule Validated): 21-month time-series proves mechanical 20% allocation | The MetLife emails provide the earliest written confirmation of the 20% formula (Sept 2020) |
| Finding #4 (Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment): Goldberg's recorded assignment states Litman owns his name | The assignment referenced in the MetLife emails ("the assignment we are finalizing now") became the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment |
| Disability Insurance Memory: "Private disability paid 24mo no questions; $290K MetLife employer claim was paper offset" | The MetLife emails show the $290K claim was Claim #692009108889, managed by Matthew Grey |
The MetLife thread shows Goldberg agreed to maintain Litman's Senior Counsel title solely for insurance purposes ("while maintaining your Senior Counsel status"), with the explicit understanding that the role was "without duties" and "without wages." Goldberg cannot now argue that the Senior Counsel title authorized name use -- he agreed in writing it was a title-only arrangement for MetLife benefit eligibility.
Goldberg told the arbitrator the agreement terminated 6/15/2020. But his own 9/17/2020 email says "I agree it would be cleanest to treat it like death, thereby instituting the five-year period starting 6/15/2020." He agreed to TRIGGER the buyout provisions -- meaning the agreement was operative, not terminated. Judicial estoppel applies.
Litman's 9/17/2020 email states the formula explicitly: "5 years of payments of an undetermined sum based on 20 percent of revenues." Goldberg did not dispute this characterization. His response accepted the framework.
| Person | Role | Contact |
|---|---|---|
| Matthew Grey | MetLife Claims Specialist, LTD | 860.895.4354, bloomfieldmail@metlife.com |
| Steven Dell | Disability insurance advisor (consulted by Litman) | TBD -- discovery target |
| Jen Siegel | HR Consultant for NGM | jsiegel@nathlaw.com, 703-362-8297 |
| Richard Litman | Claimant | rlitman@nathlaw.com |
| Joshua Goldberg | Employer representative to MetLife | JGoldberg@nathlaw.com |