McGee v. Funderburg’s Empirical Analysis
17 F.3d 1122 · 1994
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently July 2012
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1071 (Military Health Care Amendments of 1987) · 10 U.S.C. § 1074 · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1161 (§ 601 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1162 (§ 602 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 38 U.S.C. § 1710 · 38 U.S.C. § 3451 · 38 U.S.C. § 3701
Relies on Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit · Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Russell · Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation · Sisson v. Ruby · United States Glass v. Medtronic Inc
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“despite his other coverage, will be liable personally for substantial medical expenses to his and his family's detriment”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““COBRA was enacted in 1986 as a legislative response to ‘reports of the growing number of Americans without any health insurance coverage and the decreasing willingness of our Nation’s hospitals to provide care to those who cannot afford to pay.’ ” Gaskell v. Harvard Co-op. Soc’y, 3 F.3d 495, 498 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 241, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 44, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 42, 579, 622). “In ‘an effort to provide continued access to affordable private health insurance for some of these individuals,’ ” without increasing the staggering budget deficits now facing the United States, COBRA compels employers that sponsor certain group health plans to provide qualified beneficiaries with the option of receiving self-paid continuation coverage for eighteen or thirty-six months after a qualifying event which would otherwise result in termination of coverage. Gaskell, 3 F.3d at 498 (emphasis added) (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 241, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 44, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 622); 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161 (a), 1162(2)(A). The period of entitlement to continuation coverage may be shortened on the occurrence of certain events, including the employer ceasing to provide any group health plan to any employee; failure of the qualified beneficiary to pay premiums; and coverage by another group health plan or entitlement to Medicare benefits. 29 U.S.C. § 1162 (2)(B), (C), (D)(i) and (ii). ERISA, as amended by COBRA, is remedial legislation which should be liberally construe”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ERISA ... is remedial legislation which should be liberally construed to effectuate Congressional intent to protect employee participants in employee benefit plans.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.