Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

BUCKLES v. WEINBERGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 20, 1974

MARIE BUCKLES, FELICITA ALICEA, NICHOLAS SMERASKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v.
CASPAR WEINBERGER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE DEPARTMENT

Fogel, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOGEL

MEMORANDUM

This is an action which seeks to enjoin the practice of the defendant Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and his agents and delegates, by means of which certain Supplemental Security Income benefits are terminated without adequate advance notice and the opportunity for a full and fair hearing. On December 18, 1974, we heard oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by the parties, and on plaintiffs' oral motion for a preliminary injunction. On the basis of the arguments and briefs of counsel, and the Stipulation filed in lieu of documentary exhibits and oral testimony, we have determined that a Preliminary Injunction will issue, pending a full consideration of the record and the preparation of a definitive opinion and order. *fn1" In support of the Preliminary Injunction, we make the following tentative Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to Rules 65 and 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. These Findings and Conclusions are subject to modification prior to the issuance or denial of a permanent injunction. *fn2"

 FINDINGS OF FACT *fn3"

 1. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program went into effect on January 1, 1974, replacing three categories of public assistance then in effect, Aid to the Aged, Aid to the Blind and Aid to the Permanent and Totally Disabled (APTD).

 2. SSI is a subsistence income program which in Pennsylvania provides $146.00 per month to an eligible individual and $219.00 per month to an eligible couple. These amounts are supplemented in Pennsylvania by $20.00 for an individual and $30.00 for a couple.

 3. The SSI program was enacted by Congress in October of 1972 (P.L. 92-603, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.), to take effect on January 1, 1974.

 4. In the December 1972 legislation, Congress provided that any person who was permanently and totally disabled as defined in a state public assistance plan and who had received benefits under that state plan in December, 1973, would automatically qualify under SSI. Act of Oct. 30, 1972, Pub. L. 92-603, § 1614(a) (3) (A), 86 Stat. 1471.

 5. On December 31, 1973, Congress amended this "grandfather" provision in the 1972 enactment by passing Public Law 93-233, § 9(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a) (3) (E), one day before the new program was to be effective. The amendment permitted benefits to be paid without further inquiry only to those who had qualified under a state plan and received benefits for at least one month prior to July, 1973.

 6. Therefore, those persons who first received state benefits after July 1, 1973, did not automatically and unconditionally qualify for conversion to SSI; instead it was required that a determination of disability be made as to them by the Social Security Administration pursuant to the new SSI standards.

 7. In Pennsylvania, prior to January 1, 1974, named and class plaintiffs were beneficiaries of Pennsylvania's APTD program.

 8. Named and class plaintiffs received APTD in December of 1973, but not for any month prior to July 1, 1973.

 9. Approximately 10,500 people were transferred into SSI from the rolls of Pennsylvania's APTD program who had received APTD in December, 1973, but not for any month prior to July, 1973.

 10. Named plaintiffs represent a class, under Rule 23(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of over 4,500 persons in Pennsylvania who were found ineligible for SSI without an opportunity for a hearing prior to being found ineligible, because they were, according to defendant, allegedly not disabled.

 11. Because named plaintiffs and those similarly situated had been determined by Pennsylvania officials to be disabled, and were receiving APTD benefits, on or about December, 1973, they received letters from the Social Security Administration stating in part:

 

"You do not need to file an application to get supplemental security income. A gold colored check for the amount shown above ($130.00) will come to you automatically about the first day of each month. This check will take the place of the checks you now get from your state or local public assistance office."

 12. Plaintiffs were at no time requested by defendant to submit any additional evidence on their cases. Plaintiffs' checks began arriving on the first of each month. Plaintiffs took no further action to ensure their eligibility.

 13. Plaintiffs' eligibility for SSI benefits has been evaluated under federal standards by the Social Security Administration and they have been found ineligible allegedly because they are not disabled.

 14. The appeal process provided by defendant is found at 42 U.S.C. § 1383(c) (1) (3), and 20 C.F.R., Part 416. The appeal stages are carried out after benefits are discontinued, based upon defendant's contention that the cessation of payments is an initial determination rather than a suspension. 20 C.F.R. § 416.1321(c) (4).

 15. Named plaintiffs are following the steps in the appeal process, the first of which is known as "reconsideration". Reconsideration does not provide opportunity to testify in person and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The named plaintiffs have all requested reconsideration. Plaintiff Buckles was still found to be ineligible after this review. Plaintiff Smeraski has not been informed of the result of the reconsideration of his claim.

 16. Plaintiff Alicea has been determined to be eligible for SSI at the redetermination level, but she has not received any SSI payments yet.

 17. The second step in the appeal process provided by defendant is a hearing before a hearing officer. This hearing is the first opportunity plaintiffs will have to contest their finding of ineligibility at an oral evidentiary hearing.

 18. Plaintiff Buckles requested a hearing in August, 1974 and is still waiting four months later to be afforded one.

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties in this litigation.

 2. Jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause arises from the provisions of the Mandamus and Venue Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-748, § 1(a), 76 Stat. 744, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mattern v. Weinberger, 377 F. Supp. 906, 914 (E.D. Pa. 1974); Brown v. Weinberger, 382 F. Supp. 1092 (D.Md. 1974); Padilla v. Weinberger, No. 74-439 Civil (D.N.M., Sept. 20, 1974); Ryan v. Shea, 394 F. Supp. 894 (D.Colo., 1974); Lyons v. Weinberger, 376 F. Supp. 248, 255 (S.D.N.Y., 1974).

 3. Venue lies in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).

 4. This case may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for the following reasons:

 (a) the class, consisting of approximately 4500 persons in Pennsylvania, is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;

 (b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;

 (c) the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class;

 (d) the named plaintiffs, represented by competent and experienced counsel, will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;

 (e) defendant Weinberger and his agents and delegates have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.

 5. Plaintiffs have raised a serious and substantial question with respect to the constitutionality of defendant's practice of termination of SSI benefits without prior notice and without the opportunity for a full and fair hearing before such benefits are terminated. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970); Brown v. Weinberger, supra ; Padilla v. Weinberger, supra ; Atwater v. Weinberger, No. C-74-243-D (M.D.N.C., Sept. 17, 1974); Ryan v. Shea, supra ; Lyons v. Weinberger, supra, 376 F. Supp. at 258-262.

 6. There is a substantial threat that plaintiffs and the class which they represent will suffer serious and irreparable injury if a preliminary injunction is not granted.

 7. The balance of hardships in this litigation tips sharply towards the issuance of a preliminary injunction, in that great harm to plaintiffs and the class they represent will very likely occur if the preliminary injunction is not granted, and relatively insignificant harm will befall defendant if the preliminary injunction is granted, but it later appears that it was granted improvidently.

 8. The issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial harm to others interested in the proceedings.

 9. The public interest will not be adversely affected by the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

 10. No security will be required of plaintiffs for issuance of a preliminary injunction in this matter. Scherr v. Volpe, 466 F.2d 1027, 1035 (7th Cir. 1972); Powelton Civic Home Owners Association v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 284 F. Supp. 809, 840 (E.D.Pa. 1968).

 [EDITOR'S NOTE: The following court-provided text does not appear at this cite in F. Supp.]

 BY THE COURT:

 HERBERT A. FOGEL United States District Court

 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 AND NOW, to wit, this 20th day of December, 1974, upon consideration of the pleadings, the Stipulation of the parties, the memoranda submitted on their behalf, and the oral arguments presented on December 18, 1974, at which all parties were represented by counsel:

 We find that (1) serious and substantial questions have been raised by plaintiffs with respect to the constitutionality of defendant's practice of terminating the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits without adequate prior notice and without the opportunity for a full and fair hearing before such benefits are terminated; (2) that the named plaintiffs and the class which they represent are threatened with serious and irreparable harm because of the defendant's denial of SSI benefits; (3) that the balance of hardships tips sharply towards issuance of a preliminary injunction; (4) that the rights of other persons interested in these proceedings will not be substantially harmed by the issuance of a preliminary injunction; and (5) that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the issuance of a preliminary injunction; accordingly, it is hereby

 ORDERED

 That defendant Caspar W. Weinberger, his successors in office, his agents, employees, delegates, and all other persons acting in concert and participating with them, be and the same are hereby ORDERED to pay SSI benefits to plaintiffs Marie Buckles, Felicita Alicea and Nicholas Smeraski, from the date of this preliminary injunction until further Order of this Court;

 And it is FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant Caspar W. Weinberger, his successors in office, his agents, employees, delegates, and all other persons acting in concert and participation with them, be and the same are hereby ORDERED to pay SSI benefits from the date of this Preliminary Injunction until further Order of this Court, to a class, determined pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which consists of all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who

 1. Have received SSI benefits on or after January 1, 1974, and

 2. Have received state aid to the disabled on or before December 31, 1973, but not before July 1, 1973, and

 3. Have been or will be terminated or suspended from receiving SSI benefits, or have had their benefit amounts reduced, without notice and a full and fair hearing prior to the termination or suspension or reduction in amount of benefits.

 Any party may apply to the Court for modification of this Preliminary Injunction until such time as a final determination is made with respect to this litigation.

 BY THE COURT:

 HERBERT A. FOGEL United States District Court


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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