Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Newman v. Apfel
223 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. Aug. 2, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53218
Description
Ninth Circuit Upholds Regulation That Allows Two-Month Delay in Supplemental Security Income Benefit Adjustments
Abstract
The Ninth Circuit upheld a regulation that preserves a two-month
delay in Social Security Income (SSI) benefit adjustments from a
change in income despite a statute that would allow current-month
adjustments in some circumstances. The 1982 statute directed the
social security commissioner to promulgate a regulation defining
“reliable” and “currently available”
information the commissioner could use to adjust SSI benefits
without the delay from the standard “retrospective monthly
accounting” method. In 1997the commissioner promulgated a
regulation making no exception to the standard accounting because
no “reliable” and “currently available”
information existed. Plaintiff, who received SSI and social
security Title II benefits, brought a class action suit against the
commissioner because she was forced to wait two months after
termination of her Title II benefits before she received an
increase in her SSI benefits. Plaintiff’s income during the
delay was far below subsistence level. The Ninth Circuit held that
plaintiff had standing and the court had jurisdiction, rejecting
defense arguments that plaintiff’s injury was not redressable
and that no jurisdiction lay over matters of agency discretion. The
court then found the regulation to be a permissible interpretation
of the 1982 statute because nothing in the statute’s language
or legislative history required current-month accounting, and the
regulation did not contravene the purpose of the Social Security
Act.
