From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Mulvenna v. Sullivan
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
796 F. Supp. 325 (1992)
Facts
John Mulvenna (plaintiff) applied for disability benefits due to heart problems and a heightened vulnerability to stress. In 1988, Mulvenna suffered an acute cardiac infarction and was hospitalized for 10 days, following which he started a cardiac-treatment program. An administrative-law judge (ALJ) concluded that Mulvenna was not disabled after finding that although Mulvenna did not have the residual functional capacity (RFC) to return to his job of 33 years as a retail manager, he had the RFC to perform low-stress sedentary work existing in significant numbers in Mulvenna’s region. Mulvenna agreed that his skills would transfer to those jobs; however, Mulvenna maintained that his vulnerability to stress prevented him from doing any work in the national economy. This assertion was supported by two of Mulvenna’s treating physicians, who opined that Mulvenna’s personality would lead to stress from any job, which could lead to another acute cardiac infarction; one physician concluded that such an event could be fatal and the other that the combination of Mulvenna’s impairments was totally disabling. However, the ALJ’s denial became the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Louis Sullivan (defendant), without articulating why the evidence of Mulvenna’s stress-related impairment was rejected. Mulvenna appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shadur, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
