Horn v. Mullins’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.2d 35 · 1981
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. (1985), Wolfe v. Jc Penney Company Inc (1983)
28 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Danti v. Lewis · Seafarers Pension Plan v. Sturgis · 498 F. Supp. 1197 - Horn v. Mullins
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“), be eligible for a pension while so disabled. A Participant shall be considered to be totally disabled only if by reason of such accident he is subsequently determined to be eligible for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act or successor. 10 1974 Pension Plan, Art. II, pt. C. A Social Security disability award thus conclusively establishes the medical disability of the pension applicant. The disabled applicant must further show that a mining accident was”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he determination of whether an individual is disabled necessarily involves vocational as well as medical considerations. A back injury which precludes an individual from performing his usual job would rarely prevent performance of light and sedentary activities. However, whether an individual with such an injury could meet the vocational demands of light or sedentary employment is an obviously different matter. The test for disability is a functional one, and a requirement that a mine accident injury alone preclude alternative work fails to take that fact into account. Given such a requirement, a plaintiff could establish that a mine accident injury is substantially responsible for preventing him from returning to his usual job, but, because other medical conditions or vocational factors preclude alternative work, it could be found that his total disability did not result from a mine accident. The only reasonable interpretation of the requirement that total disability be “the result of a mine accident,” therefore, is that it requires total disability to have been proximately caused by the mine accident. That is, if the plaintiff was injured in a mine accident and that injury, whether in combination with a previous or subsequent condition, is substantially responsible for plaintiffs inability to perform his job and for whatever medical and vocational reasons he is unable to perform an alternative job, then his total disability results from a mine accident.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reasons of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.”
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.