Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs’s Empirical Analysis
542 F.2d 602 · 1976
Citation profile
79 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines (1983), Prandini v. National Tea Co. (1977)
79 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Phila. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp. · Lawson v. Suwanee Fruit & Steamship Co · Ditson v. California · O'KEEFFE v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an employee having an existing permanent partial disability * * *.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. The courts have adopted a “latent-manifest” test for determining when an employer will receive the benefit of § 8(f) treatment. Strong policy considerations dictate that only those employers who hire the handicapped with knowledge of their disabilities qualify for limited liability. The latent-manifest -test is one method for separating eligible from ineligible employers. In view of the difficulty of proving actual knowledge of a disability, the test is ordinarily an objective one. Conditions that are latent rather than manifest to a prospective employer do not qualify as § 8(f) disabilities. If this court determines that Aleksiejc-zyk’s medical history was latent, the Board’s order finding against Atlantic & Gulf on the § 8(f) issue must be sustained. The Administrative Law Judge found that the employer was aware of the medical problems of the decedent. .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(f) Injury increasing disability: (1) If an employee receive an injury which of itself would only cause permanent partial disability but which combined with a previous disability, does in fact cause permanent total disability, the employer shall provide compensation only for the disability caused by the subsequent injury: Provided, however, That in addition to compensation for such permanent partial disability, and after the cessation of the payments for the prescribed period of weeks, the employee shall be paid the remainder of the compensation that would be due for permanent total disability. Such additional compensation shall be paid out of the special fund established in section 944 of this title.”
2 later decisions 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.