Norman L. Horn v. Julius Mullins John J. O'COnnell Paul R. Dean United Mine Workers of Am. Health & Ret. Funds, 650 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Norman L. Horn v. Julius Mullins John J. O'COnnell Paul R. Dean United Mine Workers of Am. Health & Ret. Funds, 650 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
77 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shanklin v. United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (alnd, 2023-12-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shanklin v. United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Ala. · 2023 · confidence medium
Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir. 1981) (finding the “critical factor” to be “the date of disability determined by the ALJ,” which was “within forty-eight hours of the mine accident’’).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buzzard v. Holland
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Robertson, 848 F.2d at 476 n. 5; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981). 30 For their part, the Trustees denied Buzzard a disability pension based on the following arguments and evidence.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Buzzard v. Holland
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Robertson, 848 F.2d at 476 n. 5; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Harris v. Holland (2×)
4th Cir. · 2004 · confidence medium
Rich ards, 895 F.2d at 138; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Norman v. Holland
S.D.W. Va · 1996 · confidence medium
Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arthur J. Moats v. The United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds
3rd Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
II D; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981)), but the plan does not provide— and it would be nonsensical to provide — that the receipt of such benefits establishes that the recipient was injured in a "mine accident.”
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles P. Burdette v. William E. Mees, James Steubenrod, William H. Thorne, John W. Saunders, Maurice Wine, Roy Smith, Neal S. Boyce, Howard O. Allen, Morris Y. Alderman, Thomas M. Pendergast, Curtis Given, Michael E. Duskey, Keith A. Smith, William H. Jones, Iii, Trustees of the West Virginia-Ohio Valley I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund and the West Virginia-Ohio Valley Area I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund, Charles P. Burdette v. William E. Mees, James Steubenrod, William H. Thorne, John W. Saunders, Maurice Wine, Roy Smith, Neal S. Boyce, Howard O. Allen, Morris Y. Alderman, Thomas M. Pendergast, Curtis Given, Michael E. Duskey, Keith A. Smith, William H. Jones, Iii, Trustees of the West Virginia-Ohio Valley I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund and the West Virginia-Ohio Valley Area I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund
4th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Stanton v. Gulf Oil Corp., 792 F.2d 432, 434 (4th Cir.1986); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richards v. United Mine Workers Of America Health And Retirement Fund
4th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Robertson, 848 F.2d at 475 n. 5; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) (date set by Social Security Administration was critical factor in determining cause of disability); Richards I, 851 F.2d at 125 n. 1 (Hall, J., dissenting).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richards v. United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Fund
4th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Robertson, 848 F.2d at 475 n. 5; Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) (date set by Social Security Administration was critical factor in determining cause of disability); Richards I, 851 F.2d at 125 n. 1 (Hall, J., dissenting).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gaynell Boyd v. Trustees of the United Mine Workers Health & Retirement Funds
4th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Robertson v. Connors, 848 F.2d 472, 475 (4th Cir.1988); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wiseman v. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Fund
4th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
LeFebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 747 F.2d 197, 204 (4th Cir.1984) (citing Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) ).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Odle v. Trustees, United Mine Workers of America, Health & Retirement Funds
W.D. Va. · 1988 · confidence medium
Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1006 (4th Cir.1985); Lefebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 747 F.2d 197, 204 (4th Cir.1984); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Voliva v. Seafarers Pension Plan
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In addition, other circuits, and most notably the District of Columbia Circuit in the case from which the Fourth Circuit drew its ERISA standard of review, see Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) (citing Danti v. Lewis, 312 F.2d 345 (D.C.Cir.1962)), have held that district courts should also not consider arguments that do not appear in the administrative record.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Voliva v. Seafarers Pension Plan
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In addition, other circuits, and most notably the District of Columbia Circuit in the case from which the Fourth Circuit drew its ERISA standard of review, see Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) (citing Danti v. Lewis, 312 F.2d 345 (D.C.Cir.1962)), have held that district courts should also not consider arguments that do not appear in the administrative record.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richards v. United Mine Workers Of America Health And Retirement Funds
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
E.g., Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Burton v. Connors
S.D.W. Va · 1988 · confidence medium
Such a determination will depend upon “whether the trustees’ decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richards v. United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
E.g., Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hanshaw v. Conners (2×) also: Cited "see"
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Horn v. Mullins, 498 F.Supp. 1197, 1200 (W.D.Va.1980), aff'd., 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981). 3 11 The Trustees have the initial and primary responsibility in determining whether a mine worker meets these requirements and their decision will not be overturned unless they are determined to be arbitrary or capricious.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pauley v. UMWA Health and Retirement Funds
4th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
LeFebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 747 F.2d 197, 204 (4th Cir.1984) (citing Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawkins Stanton v. Gulf Oil Corporation and Its Benefits Committee
4th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
II This circuit held in Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981), that judicial review of a decision by a committee concerning interpretation of the terms of an employee benefits plan is limited to review of whether the committee acted in bad faith or in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Witmeyer v. Kilroy
4th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
District 17 v. Allied Corp., 765 F.2d 412, 416-17 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 3527 , 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); Berry v. CIBA Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1006 (4th Cir.1985); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981); see Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593 , 599 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 829 , 104 S.Ct. 105 , 78 L.Ed.2d 108 (1983).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Witmeyer v. Kilroy
4th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
District 17 v. Allied Corp., 765 F.2d 412 , 416-17 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 3527 , 87 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985); Berry v. CIBA Geigy Corp., 761 F.2d 1003, 1006 (4th Cir.1985); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir. 1981); see Miles v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund Employee Pension Benefit Plan, 698 F.2d 593, 599 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 829 , 104 S.Ct. 105 , 78 L.Ed.2d 108 (1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rose M. Holland v. Burlington Industries, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Berry, 761 F.2d at 1006 ; LeFebre, 747 F.2d at 204 , Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Holland v. Burlington Industries, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Berry, 761 F.2d at 1006 ; LeFebre, 747 F.2d at 204 , Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hebra A. Berry v. Ciba-Geigy Corporation
4th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
See Le Febre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 747 F.2d 197, 204 (4th Cir.1984); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981), and cases cited therein.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vickie D. Lefebre, Administratrix, Estate of Don C. Lefebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. Management Disability Benefits Plan Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation, Vickie D. Lefebre, Administratrix, Estate of Don C. Lefebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., Management Disability Benefits Plan Westinghouse Electric Corporation Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York Corporation and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, a New York Corporation
4th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Sec. 1104 (a)(1) ] 37 In Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) we stated: 38 The standard for reviewing a decision of the trustees is whether it is arbitrary or capricious.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LeFebre v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
4th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
(B) With the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims____ 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (a)(1)] In Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) we stated: The standard for reviewing a decision of the trustees is whether it is arbitrary or capricious.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynolds v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
D. Maryland · 1984 · confidence medium
“To determine whether the action was arbitrary or capricious, [the court] must first decide whether the trustees’ decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) George Wolfe v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Fine v. Semet, 699 F.2d 1091, 1093 (11th Cir.1983); Palino v. Casey, 664 F.2d 854, 858 (1st Cir.1981); Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981); Rosen v. Hotel and Restaurant Emp. & Bartenders Union, 637 F.2d 592, 596 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 898 , 102 S.Ct. 398 , 70 L.Ed.2d 213 (1981); Wardle v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 627 F.2d 820, 823-24 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1112 , 101 S.Ct. 922 , 66 L.Ed.2d 841 (1981); Bayles v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 602 F.2d 97, 99-100 (5th Cir.1979); Bueneman v. Ce…
discussed Cited "see" Linville v. Conners
4th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Horn v. Mullins, supra, 650 F.2d at 37 (critical factor was date of disability determined by ALJ; here, two days after mine accident); Richards v. UMWA Health & Retirement Fund, supra, 895 F.2d at 138 (in dispute over whether date of disability was January 30 or 31, SSDI finding of January 30 tipped balance in favor of claimant).
discussed Cited "see" Robertson v. Connors (2×)
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) ("social security award creates an 'irrebutable presumption' of disability"). 4 Compare Odom v. UMWA, 687 F.2d 843, 847 (6th Cir.1982), where the Sixth Circuit discussed the appropriate causation standard and concluded "[t]he question is whether the accident contributed in some part to the disability...." Odom developed this less stringent proximate cause interpretation from the "principle ... commonly found in disability benefits programs" and from guidelines promulgated by the Trustees.
discussed Cited "see" Robertson v. Connors (2×)
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord, Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981) ("social security award creates an 'irrebutable presumption’ of disability”). .
cited Cited "see" Fogarty v. United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds
W.D. Va. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35, 37 (4th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see" Lonnie W. Odom, Sr. v. United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds
6th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Horn v. Mullins, 650 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1981) upholding the reversal of a determination by the UMWA Trust Funds because of the close temporal relationship between a mining injury and the onset of the claimant’s permanent and total disability.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Norman L. HORN, Appellee,
v.
Julius MULLINS; John J. O'Connell; Paul R. Dean; United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds, Appellants
80-1735.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
May 27, 1981.
650 F.2d 35
E. Calvin Golumbic, Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C. (William F. Hanrahan, Deputy Gen. Counsel, Jeanne K. Beck, Associate Counsel, Phillip T. Kimball, Associate Counsel, Washington, D. C., Stuart B. Campbell, Campbell, Young & Hodges, Wytheville, Va., on brief), for appellants., Matthew J. Cody, Jr., Lebanan, Va., for appellee.
Bryan, Hall, Phillips.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published
K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge:

The trustees of the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds (UMW Trust) appeal from a decision of the district court, 498 F.Supp. 1197, awarding a disability pension to Norman L. Horn. The court granted Horn’s motion for summary judgment, finding that he was disabled as a result of a mining accident and therefore entitled to the pension. We affirm.

The UMW Trust provides that a miner with ten years of credited service who receives a social security award as a result of a mine accident is entitled to a disability pension. [1] At issue in this appeal is the narrow question of whether Horn’s disability resulted from a mine accident.

Horn injured his back on October 18, 1976, lifting a bag of cement while employed as a coal miner. Two days later his physician diagnosed the condition as lower back syndrome. One week later Horn was admitted to the hospital where he was examined by an orthopaedic surgeon and a neurosurgeon who subsequently operated to remove a ruptured disk from Horn’s back.

Horn first applied for social security disability benefits in November, 1977. His original claim and subsequent motion to reconsider were denied. Before appealing, Horn visited three other medical specialists who examined him and reported that his numerous physical and mental problems rendered his chances for vocational rehabilitation doubtful. Horn presented this report as well as the testimony of a vocational expert in an appeals hearing held before a Social Security Administrative Law Judge (AU). Considering the entire record and the new evidence, the ALJ determined that Horn was totally disabled [2] as of October[*37] 20, 1976 as a result of his recurrent headaches, psychological trauma, stabbing chest pains, and back pains with numbness in the right leg.

Horn then filed a claim with the UMW Trust for disability benefits, using his social security award as proof of disability. The trustees determined that Horn had the requisite ten years of mine service and a social security award, but they denied his application on the grounds that his disability did not result from a mine accident. Horn unsuccessfully appealed the decision to a hearing officer appointed by the UMW Trust.

Horn filed suit in federal district court pursuant to § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act [3] and § 502(f) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. [4] The district court ruled the medical evidence sufficient to prove that the mining accident was in “substantial part” responsible for Horn’s inability to return to work and that no substantial evidence existed to prove Horn’s ability to perform alternative work. Based upon these rulings, the court granted Horn’s motion for summary judgment.

The standard for reviewing a decision of the trustees is whether it is arbitrary or capricious. Seafarers Pension Plan v. Sturgis, 630 F.2d 218, 221 (4th Cir. 1980). To determine whether the action was arbitrary or capricious, we must first decide whether the trustees’ decision was supported by substantial evidence. Danti v. Lewis, 312 F.2d 345, 348-50 (D.C.Cir.1962). The trustees acknowledge that the social security award creates an “irrebuttable presumption” of disability and they do not challenge that determination. They do, however, attack the district court’s finding as to the causes of that disability. Based upon evidence from the social security proceedings, the trustees argue that Horn’s total disability resulted from a number of medical problems, at least two of which postdated and were unrelated to the mine accident.

The district court dismissed the trustees’ arguments, holding that they failed to prove that the accident was not substantially related to the disability and that Horn was able to perform alternative work. While we agree with the result reached by the district court, we do so for other reasons.

We think the critical factor in this case is the date of disability determined by the ALJ after careful consideration of the conflicting evidence. He found the date of total disability to be October 20, 1976, the first day Horn was treated for his back injury and within forty-eight hours of the mine accident. Clearly the total disability on October 20 occurred as a result of the mine accident on October 18.

Accordingly, we find the trustees’ decision that Horn’s permanent disability did not result from his accident is not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the denial of benefits on that ground is arbitrary and capricious and the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Horn was correct.

AFFIRMED.

1

. The UMW Trust reads in pertinent part:

A participant who (a) has at least 10 years of signatory service prior to retirement, and (b) becomes totally disabled on or after the effective date as a result of a mine accident shall, upon his retirement ..., be eligible for a pension. 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 its successor.

2

. The Social Security Act defines “disability” as:

Inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.

42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A) (1978).

3

. Title 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) provides:

Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

4

. Title 29 U.S.C. § 1132 provides in pertinent part that a civil action may be brought by a participant or beneficiary of a pension plan “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan,” and United States District Courts are granted jurisdiction “without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties