Opinion ID: 602920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The nature of Plaintiff's interest

Text: 5 Plaintiffs claim that the termination of benefits without an opportunity to be heard violated their procedural due process rights. Relying on Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970), the Plaintiffs argue that, as recipients of government assistance, they had a right to a hearing before those benefits were terminated. If Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to present evidence, they contend that they would establish their eligibility to receive health benefits. 6 Goldberg involved the termination of public assistance payments without any opportunity for the recipient to present evidence or make a record. The Court posited that whether a pre-termination hearing was constitutionally required depends upon whether the recipient's interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary adjudication. Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 262-63, 90 S.Ct. at 1017-18. In the case of welfare, the Court determined, termination of aid pending resolution of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an eligible recipient of the very means by which to live while he waits. Id. at 264, 90 S.Ct. at 1018. After considering the government's claimed interests, the Court concluded that the interest of the eligible recipient in uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the State's interest that his payments not be erroneously terminated, clearly outweighs the State's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens. Id. at 266, 90 S.Ct. at 1019. 7 IHS contends that no interest in a continuation of these benefits arose because the services were mistakenly extended to Plaintiffs. According to the IHS, the Ute Termination Act clearly eliminates any claim of eligibility the Plaintiff's may have had to the services. We find Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) instructive. There, the Court determined that there may be a protected interest in those claims upon which people rely in their daily lives. Id. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709. Moreover, property interests are created and their dimensions are defined by ... understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits. Id. Plaintiffs claim that they had been receiving certain medical benefits and developed an expectation that such health care would continue to be available. Once assistance has been extended, a court considering the nature of the recipient's rights may consider that individual's interest in uninterrupted assistance. Fox v. Morton, 505 F.2d 254, 256 (9th Cir.1974). 8 Clearly, health benefits have similar characteristics of urgency and necessity as welfare payments. If monetary sustenance is critical to the recipient, Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 264, 90 S.Ct. at 1018, services necessary to maintain physical health represent another critical benefit. See id. at 264, 90 S.Ct. at 1018 (medical care recognized as one purpose of welfare payments). The nature of health care benefits, coupled with the fact that the Plaintiffs had already received such benefits, leads us to conclude that some pre-termination hearing was necessary.