Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CRAMMER v. DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WELFARE (11/19/71)

decided: November 19, 1971.

CRAMMER
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE



Appeal from the Final and Amended Order of the Secretary of Public Welfare in case of Edna F. Crammer v. Department of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

COUNSEL

Eugene F. Zenobi, Tri-County Legal Services, for appellant.

Sidney V. Blecker, Assistant Attorney General, with him Marx S. Leopold, General Council, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, and Rogers. Opinion of President Judge Bowman in Support of Affirming Adjudication of Department of Welfare. Judges Wilkinson and Rogers join in this opinion. Opinion of Judge Crumlish, Jr., in Support of Reversal. Judge Kramer joins in the Opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[3 Pa. Commw. 460 Page 462]

After argument before a panel and reargument before the Court en banc, the Court being equally divided, the adjudication is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.

Opinion of President Judge Bowman in Support of Affirming Adjudication of Department of Welfare:

The Federal statutory court convened in Fullington v. Shea, 320 F. Supp. 500 (D. Colo. 1970) in my opinion correctly interpreted the Federal statutory law involved in this appeal, and it is not here disputed that the Department's controlling regulation is consistent with the applicable Pennsylvania statutory law.

Opinion of Judge Crumlish, Jr., in Support of Reversal:

Edna F. Crammer, appellant, is just one of a multitude of Social Security payment recipients all across the United States who have experienced an unfortunate and unexpected effect of a nationwide increase in the allotment of Social Security benefits. Prior to the increase, appellant's Social Security monthly benefits, her sole income, were less than the maximum monthly income allowance of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. Therefore, she was classified as "categorically needy" and was eligible to receive medical benefits including the payment of costs for drugs. This care was provided by the State under the mandate of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 301 et seq. However when the Social Security payments increased, appellant's income became greater than the permissible maximum ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.