Opinion ID: 338364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Policies and Practices of the Secretary

Text: 26 During the changeover of programs, there was no interruption in the payment of benefits to the plaintiff and there was no indication in the initial notices that the benefits were provisional in nature. Instead, the plaintiff was sent a notice which informed him (1) that he was eligible for SSI benefits; (2) that he need not file an application to receive these benefits; and (3) that he would automatically receive the benefits on a monthly basis. 10 He received additional notices informing him of increases in the amount of the benefits. Finally, while he received a notice informing him that his case was being reviewed to determine if he was eligible under federal law, he was told that he was not required to provide any further information unless requested to do so. 27 These actions of the Secretary are sufficient to support the plaintiff's legitimate claim of entitlement to, and thus a property interest in, the continued receipt of benefits. Buckles v. Weinberger, supra, 398 F.Supp. at 942-43. In complete and justifiable reliance upon the notification of eligibility sent to him by the Secretary, the plaintiff took no further action to ensure his rights as a recipient. Id. at 942. The plaintiff thus had more than a unilateral expectation of continued benefits and his reliance on that expectation must not be arbitrarily undermined. Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701. 28