Source: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/1602105011
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 11:02:00
Document Index: 152151826

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 810', '§ 202', '§ 402', '§ 202', '§ 202', '§ 316']

SSA - POMS: PS 02105.011 - Florida - 08/05/2009
Effective Dates: 08/05/2009 - Present Previous | Next
PS 02105.011 Florida
A. PS 09-140 Request for Reinstatement and Repayment of Suspended Benefits Following the Recall of a Probation Warrant – Florida Number Holder: Kenneth O. G~
A court issued an order granting a prosecutor’s motion to void and recall a violation-of-probation warrant and to dismiss the underlying charge that the number holder violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Because the court order nullified the warrant from the date of issuance forward, SSA could grant mandatory good cause for not withholding payment based on the probation violation warrant. Therefore, SSA was able to reinstate the number holder's eligibility for disability insurance benefits, repay any benefits previously withheld, and also remove the overpayment from his account.
You noted a court order granting a prosecutor’s motion to void and recall a violation-of-probation warrant and to dismiss the underlying charge that the number holder violated the terms and conditions of his probation and asked whether the order entitled the number holder to reinstatement of his eligibility for disability insurance benefits, repayment of benefits previously withheld, and the removal of an overpayment from his account.
We conclude this order entitles the number holder to reinstatement of his eligibility for disability insurance benefits, repayment of benefits previously withheld, and the removal of the overpayment from his account.
Kenneth O. G~, the number holder (NH), began receiving disability insurance benefits in October 1976. On March 12, 1990, NH pled nolo contendre to attempted burglary of a structure or dwelling while unarmed, which is a felony in the second degree under Florida law. See FLA. STAT. ANN. § 810.02(3)(a) (West 2009). The Circuit Court of Escambia County sentenced NH to two years probation. On May 15, 1990, the court issued a probation warrant. The Social Security Administration (SSA) learned of the probation warrant on July 1, 2008, and suspended NH’s entitlement to benefits as of January 2005. SSA assessed NH with an overpayment of $36,882.00. Upon motion by the state prosecutor, the court issued an order on March 27, 2009, to void and recall the violation of probation warrant and dismiss the violation of probation charge.
The Social Security Act (Act) precludes the payment of benefits to any individual for any month (or part of a month) after January 1, 2005, for which he has an outstanding warrant for a violation of a condition of probation or parole imposed under federal or state law. See Act § 202(x)(1)(A)(v), 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A)(v); Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 02613.001(A), GN 02613.010(A)(1). An individual need not actively hide or evade the law for this provision to apply and the existence of an unsatisfied warrant is all that is required to suspend the individual’s benefits. See POMS GN 02613.001(B)(3). Benefits shall not be paid from the date the warrant is issued, or January 1, 2005, whichever date is later, until the month the warrant has been satisfied. See POMS GN 02613.001(B)(8), GN 02613.010(A). A warrant is satisfied once it is dismissed, discharged, or otherwise discontinued by a judge. See POMS GN 02613.010(A)(4). We believe the March 27, 2009 order granting the prosecutor’s motion to void and recall the violation of probation warrant and dismiss the violation of probation charge is sufficient to satisfy the warrant. Therefore, SSA should reinstate NH’s entitlement to benefits.
We also believe NH is entitled to repayment of benefits previously withheld and the removal of the overpayment from his account. When SSA learned NH had an unsatisfied probation warrant dating back to May 1990, it suspended NH’s benefits and assessed an overpayment to his account of $36,882.00 for the period after January 2005. Under the mandatory good cause provisions of the Act, SSA will, for good cause shown, repay benefits previously withheld if a court of competent jurisdiction has (1) found the individual not guilty of the criminal offense, (2) dismissed the charges relating to either the criminal offense or the probation/parole violation on the unsatisfied warrant, (3) vacated the warrant for arrest of the individual for the criminal offense or the probation/parole violation, or (4) issued any similarly exonerating order, or if (5) SSA determines the individual was erroneously implicated in connection with the criminal offense by reason of identity fraud. See Act § 202(x)(1)(B)(iii); POMS GN 02613.025(B)(1). The March 27, 2009, order dismissing the violation-of-probation charge satisfies the mandatory good cause provision and requires the repayment of any previously withheld benefits. See Act § 202(x)(1)(B)(iii)(I); POMS GN 02613.025(B)(1). Therefore, NH is entitled to repayment those benefits previously withheld and the removal of the overpayment from his account.
NH is entitled to reinstatement of his eligibility for disability benefits as well as repayment of those benefits previously withheld and the removal of the overpayment from his account.
B. PS 09-083 SSI - Ohio - Question on Mandatory Good Cause for Fugitive Felon Suspension for James M. Y~, Sr. Your Reference: S2D5G6 SI 2-3-12 OH Our Reference: 08-0172-NC
You asked us whether the benefits of James M. Y~, Sr. were properly suspended and reinstated under the regulations governing payment of benefits to fugitive felons, and whether the mandatory good cause exception for repaying benefits for fugitive felons applies in his case. We conclude that Mr. Y~' case needs to be re-evaluated, because the information used to suspend his benefits was apparently erroneous. It appears that Mr. Y~ was not, in fact, wanted on a felony drug charge, as SSA had been informed. 1 Rather, it appears that a warrant was issued because Mr. Y~ was in violation of probation. However, based on the information available at the time of this opinion, we conclude that if Mr. Y~ had been a fleeing felon or probation violator, an action by a West Virginia state court could not have satisfied an underlying Florida warrant. Therefore, Mr. Y~' eligibility for benefits may have ceased at the time he violated his probation, unless discretionary good cause is found to allow his benefits to continue.
Because Mr. Y~' file did not contain a copy of the underlying Florida warrant, our office contacted the Clerk of Courts for Brevard County, Florida, to ask for a copy of the warrant. During a telephone conversation on March 16, 2009, our office was informed that Brevard County had no information suggesting that Mr. Y~ had ever been arrested on drug charges, and Brevard County had never issued a fugitive warrant for Mr. Y~. 2 However, the clerk's office stated that Mr. Y~ had been arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) in 2005. On January 31, 2007, he was found guilty of a lesser charge of reckless driving (a misdemeanor) under Florida Statute § 316.192. On August 14, 2007, Brevard County issued a warrant for Mr. Y~' arrest based on a violation of probation in connection with this conviction. According to the clerk's office and the web site for the Brevard County Clerk of Courts, that warrant remains open. See http://199.241.8.125/index.cfm?FuseAction=Criminal.Home (warrants/writs). 3
1 If SSA does find, upon further investigation, evidence that there is a fugitive felony warrant for Mr. Y~, SSA should apply the policy dictated by the settlement in the case of Martinez v. Social Security Administration (N.D. Calif. 2009), as instructed in EM 09025.
2 We recommend that you obtain an official statement to this effect for the record.
3 We have attached copies of these records.
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/1602105011
PS 02105.011 - Florida - 08/05/2009
Batch run: 08/05/2009
Rev:08/05/2009