Social media is very addictive. One facet of this addiction is the ease in staying connected with friends.  When friends share, that opens the door for you to share what is going on in your own life as well. However, if you are receiving long-term disability benefits, rest assured that your insurance company is most interested in what you are posting. And if you post the wrong thing, that may well end your benefit.

The social media posts referenced in Eggleston v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.,2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 31442 (11th Cir. December 3, 2025) gave Unum what it needed to terminate a long-term disability benefit after it had been paid from 2011 until 2022.   Ms. Eggleston began working as a nurse in 2004 and eventually took a position working as a clinical research nurse at John Hopkins. In 2011 she stopped working due to multiple chronic conditions including sciatica in 2011, and then fibromyalgia in 2013, and undifferentiated connective tissue disease in 2015. She filed a claim in 2011 for the group disability benefit offered by her employer. Unum paid the claim.

No doubt after being on claim for over 10 years, Ms. Eggleston believed that the claim would continue until the maximum payment date of her normal retirement age, absent some remarkable recovery which was not likely.  However, Unum found some posts on social media to terminate the claim.  When that happens, the truth is irrelevant as Ms. Eggleston learned.

Typically, when Unum finds a reason to terminate a claim this old, it turns into a bulldog holding onto its bone. It will not matter how many treating doctors you have to confirm that you remain disabled from full time work. Unum will hire all the doctors it needs to keep the claim terminated. It will match every vocational expert with its own employee vocational consultant. It will not care that it appears inconsistent, nor that the Social Security Administration found disability.

So, what was posted by Ms. Eggleston? First the 11^th Circuit noted there was evidence of “A soul food catering business”. That implies an ability to cook, cater and manage a business.  That was used to assume an ability to work full time, which is astounding. That assumption requires knowing how often this business is conducted and whether others are actually doing some of the work. For example, if Ms. Eggleston had good days and bad days, and she only cooked when she felt well or only cooked for 2 or 3 hours out of the day, that is hardly full-time employment. That does not necessarily translate to being able to work with reasonable continuity. Few, if any, occupations tolerate unplanned absences from work for 2 or more days every month. However, Unum and the 11th Circuit clearly picked up on that post to assume much.

Then it was also noted that Ms. Eggleston had been “traveling to St. Thomas in the United States Virgin Islands”. The direct flight from Miami only lasted perhaps 2 hours and 45 minutes. However, that was taken as evidence that Ms. Eggleston felt a lot better than what she was saying and had the capacity to sit and work a job for 8 hours a day.

Then it was noted that she attended a three-hour show which likely involved some sitting and standing. Then lastly, she attended a wedding. Clearly none of these activities translated into the ability to work with reasonable continuity but the optics are bad. It would have been far better for her to say nothing about any of these activities or events on social media.

Of course, after having some events with potentially poor impressions in the claim record, it is easy for Unum to line up all the doctors it needs to support the termination regardless of multiple treating doctors contending otherwise. The courts may allow that if the arbitrary and capricious standard of review is applicable. That is one of the criticisms of the 6-step standard of review in the 11^th Circuit. It can yield unfair results.

Ms. Eggleston was represented by very capable counsel. However, the case clearly demonstrates that in the courts, the thumb is on the scale in favor of Unum. Even though there was significant evidence demonstrating that Ms. Eggleston could not work in any full-time occupation with reasonable continuity, the unfavorable visuals from social media still led to the claim termination. That will often be the case when the basis of disability is pain or some other subjective condition.

So, what is the best advice here when it comes to social media? Avoid giving the insurer a reason to go after you. On social media talk about others, the weather, or local matters, but don't talk about you.