It is now 2 decades since Mayer et al published their Volvo Award-winning paper entitled “Objective assessment of spine function following industrial injury: a prospective study with comparison group and one-year follow-up.” Their landmark paper reported that return to work rates of patients that underwent a “functional restoration” treatment program were double that of a comparative group of patients that were denied treatment by their insurers. These results were considered extraordinary and inspired both debate and enthusiasm. Our goal is to review this landmark study, report on its strengths and weaknesses, and review the studies that have attempted to replicate this work in other settings. We also highlight its contribution to our current knowledge about the treatment of back pain and disability. The major weaknesses of the paper of Mayer et al are the possibility of selection bias in the development of their cohort of patients and the lack of a true randomized controlled study design. These factors may have inflated the rates of return to work. Regardless, their reported results were robust, and cannot be easily dismissed. During the last 20 years, this treatment model has received considerable study worldwide, and it is generally agreed that it is superior to standard care for reducing work absence in patients with chronic low back pain. Additionally, the concepts underlying functional restoration have been found to be highly relevant to patients with chronic low back pain, medical providers, and disability systems and continue to gain acceptance and integration into the care of patients throughout the industrialized world.