Employers' costs for long-term disability insurance have been on the rise and they could escalate further if the Supreme Court finds in favor of an Ohio woman who is suing MetLife.

Wanda Glenn, a former Sears Roebuck and Co. sales manager who was struck by a heart attack in 1989, was told more than 10 years later by her doctor that if she didn't stop working, she would die. MetLife paid benefits to Glenn for two years but told her in 2002 that she was well enough to return to work and discontinued benefit payments.

As is the case with almost half of all employer disability plans, MetLife was responsible for paying benefits and also deciding whether benefits should be paid -- which raises the issue of conflict of interest. According to The Associated Press, Glenn's lawyers said that MetLife saved $180,000 by denying Glenn disability benefits until retirement.

It sounds like a simple case of putting the fox in charge of the hen house, but such arrangements are permitted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A U.S. Appeals Court ordered MetLife to reinstate Glenn's benefits in 2006. MetLife appealed the decision and took the case to the Supreme Court, which began to hear oral arguments in the matter last week.

MetLife stated that the lower court's decision would encourage people to file questionable claims that would lead to an increase in the costs of disability plans to employers and to insurers. Insurers also argue that allowing them to provide dual roles -- as benefits payer and eligibility decider -- promotes process efficiency that helps keep costs in line, allowing employers to offer better benefit plans than they would if they had to pay a separate administrator.

The Roberts Court's decision could pave the way for a big change in the long-term disability delivery model and its costs to employers.