Fair v. Shalala

No. 90-1263-CIV-T-24 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50712

Description

Secretary May Not Reduce SSI Benefits on Grounds of Recipients’ Spouses’ Receiving Veterans’ Benefits for Unusual Medical Expenses

Abstract

On rehearing, the district court has set aside its decision granting defendant Secretary of HHS’s motion to dismiss in this class action challenging the Secretary’s treatment of veterans’ benefits in computing SSI payments. Plaintiffs disputed the reduction of their SSI benefits on the basis of their spouses’ receipt of veterans’ benefits paid for unusual medical expenses (UMEs). Plaintiffs also contradicted the Secretary’s interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 1382a(a)(2)(B), as expressed in Social Security Ruling (SSR) 82-31, to require counting the supplemental portion of veterans’ benefits paid on account of a dependent as that dependent’s income for purposes of determining SSI eligibility. Finding that the Secretary’s interpretation was not entitled to deference and was inconsistent with the statute and regulations, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The Secretary appealed the court’s holding invalidating SSR-82-31. Reversing, the Eleventh Circuit held that the Secretary’s interpretation was entitled to deference. The court of appeals found that SSR 82-31 did represent a change in policy and interpretation but that the change was in response to circuit court rulings that the Secretary’s prior interpretation—under which the Secretary considered all veterans’ benefits as a veteran’s unearned income—was invalid. Further, the court held that SSR 82-31 is an interpretation of provisions of the Social Security Act, a matter within the Secretary’s area of expertise. The court noted that the Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have also held that the Secretary’s interpretation on this issue is entitled to deference. On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Secretary and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs moved for rehearing. They argued that the court had erred in dismissing the case since they had been successful in their challenge to the Secretary’s policy regarding the counting of UME reimbursements. On rehearing, the district court set aside its dismissal order and retained jurisdiction to ensure compliance with that part of its earlier order relating to the reduction of SSI benefits based on recipients’ spouses’ receiving UME reimbursement.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs represented by Sarah Bohr, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc. 604 Hogan St., Jacksonville, FL 32202, (904) 356-8371; Nancey Penner, Suzanne Harris.
Docket Date
1995-02-03 00:00:00+00:00