Vance v. Holland
District Court, W.D. Virginia
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
JONES, District Judge.
The question in this case is whether a coal miner who suffered a back injury that did not involve force or impact to the body was properly held by the mine workers pension plan not to be qualified for a disability pension. Finding that substantial evidence supported the decision to deny pension benefits, I hold that the plan’s decision was not an abuse of discretion and grant the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
I. Background.
On June 18, 1996, the plaintiff, Arnold Vance, applied for a disability pension from the United Mine Workers of America (“UMWA”) 1974…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. BruchSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- De Nobel v. Vitro Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
- Bernstein v. CapitalCare, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- The Sheppard & Enoch Pratt Hospital, Incorporated v. Travelers Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1994
- Gaynell Boyd v. Trustees of the United Mine Workers Health & Retirement FundsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- O'Quinn v. Trustees, UMWA Health & Retirement FundDistrict Court, W.D. Virginia · 2005
- O'Quinn v. Trustees of the United Mine Workers Health & Retirement FundsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2006