Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitstatuteburden of proofregulation
statuteburden of proofregulation

Related Cases

Scheehle v. Justices of Supreme Court of Ariz., 508 F.3d 887, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 13,072, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,038
View Case »
Tolson v. Sistrunk, 332 Ga.App. 324, 772 S.E.2d 416
View Case »
Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 470
View Case »
International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642, 146 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2641, 62 USLW 4705, 128 Lab.Cas. P 11,120
View Case »
Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, 251 A.D.2d 35, 675 N.Y.S.2d 14
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Miller v. United States, 294 U.S. 435, 55 S.Ct. 440, 79 L.Ed. 977

Facts

Madison L. Miller, Jr. enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1917 and was discharged in 1919. He had a war risk insurance policy that provided for monthly payments in case of total and permanent disability. After sustaining injuries in a railway accident during service, he claimed insurance benefits in 1931, twelve years after the policy lapsed due to non-payment of premiums. The claim was denied, leading to this lawsuit.

Madison L. Miller, Jr. enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1917 and was discharged in 1919. He had a war risk insurance policy that provided for monthly payments in case of total and permanent disability.

Issue

Did Madison L. Miller, Jr. sustain total and permanent disability as defined by the war risk insurance policy and applicable regulations?

Did Madison L. Miller, Jr. sustain total and permanent disability as defined by the war risk insurance policy and applicable regulations?

Rule

The court applied the legal principle that total permanent disability must be established by evidence showing the inability to follow any substantially gainful occupation, as defined by the relevant statutes and regulations.

The court applied the legal principle that total permanent disability must be established by evidence showing the inability to follow any substantially gainful occupation, as defined by the relevant statutes and regulations.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented by Miller regarding his injuries and employment history. It concluded that while he lost his right arm, he failed to prove that this injury rendered him permanently unable to engage in any work. The court noted that he had worked in various jobs after his injury and did not make sufficient efforts to adapt to his condition, which undermined his claim of total and permanent disability.

The court analyzed the evidence presented by Miller regarding his injuries and employment history. It concluded that while he lost his right arm, he failed to prove that this injury rendered him permanently unable to engage in any work.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Miller did not meet the burden of proof required to establish total and permanent disability under the terms of the insurance policy.

The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Miller did not meet the burden of proof required to establish total and permanent disability under the terms of the insurance policy.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Miller did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of total and permanent disability.

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found that Miller did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of total and permanent disability.

You must be