Opinion ID: 350203
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Government Interest

Text: 64 The final factor to be assessed is the public interest, which includes the administrative burdens associated with requiring an oral hearing prior to recoupment in waiver cases. 65 There is an understandable dispute as to the actual burden to be borne by the Secretary under a requirement of pre-recoupment oral hearings for waiver requests. No one can say with complete authority how many additional hearings will take place under the guidelines we set down today. A review of the record indicates on the negative side that there will be a modest increase in burden. On the positive side, however, it appears fairly certain that hearings should significantly reduce errors in the decision making process. 66 The major fiscal difficulty envisioned by the Secretary is the likelihood that the availability of pre-recoupment hearings will result in the filing of a far greater number of requests for reconsideration or waiver. 67 During oral argument counsel for the Secretary cited statistics that show that the number of hearings on termination of welfare benefits has increased from 19,000 per year to 68,000 per year since the decision of the Supreme Court in Goldberg. Without further clarification, these statistics are of little value. Cf., Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. at 346, 96 S.Ct. 893. They do not disclose what change, if any, has taken place in the success rate of welfare beneficiaries who receive a hearing. If the effect of Goldberg were to cause the filing of a large number of frivolous requests for hearings by people seeking to delay termination, there might be reason to question the wisdom of Goldberg. But if, in fact, the percentage of successful contests has remained constant or declined only slightly, then Goldberg has resulted in a larger number of correct determinations of the issue of whether welfare benefits should be terminated, and, as such, Goldberg has benefited rather than burdened the system. 68 If requiring pre-recoupment hearings would result in the filing of frivolous requests in order to delay recoupment, the present procedure should also encourage frivolous written requests for reconsideration or waiver. This is so because the present practice of the Secretary is to delay recoupment until after a determination by the Department that the request should not be granted. 69 The findings of fact by the courts below strengthen our belief that the increased burden will be minimal. First, very few of the recoupment decisions of the Secretary are challenged in any way. Claimants object to less than 1% of the recoupments. Second, when they do object, a high percentage convince the Secretary to reverse himself. Almost three-fourths of the claimants who contest their recoupment win a favorable decision somewhere along the line, and more than one-third of those who reach the post-termination hearing succeed at that stage. Elliott v. Weinberger, 371 F.Supp. 960, at 967. 20 70 There has been no showing that the percentage of challenges will increase substantially or that the number of hearings will rise inordinately. There may be more requests for waiver and reconsideration when the Secretary's notices are redesigned to provide the information required to fulfill the due process notice requirements noted elsewhere in this opinion. There will also be some increase in hearings reflecting those claimants who would have given up or died before the post-recoupment hearings which under the current procedures are held almost one year after the fact. 71 Furthermore, the financial burden the Government bears in recoupment cases is substantially lighter than in a termination case. In the latter, as noted in Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. at 348, 96 S.Ct. 893, the Government is forced to continue paying benefits to someone who not only may not be eligible for them, but who in all likelihood will be unable to repay them and may be judgment-proof in the event that he is found ineligible for the amounts paid during the review and termination process. 72 In the instant case we merely require the Government to exercise a little forebearance before taking money from the claimants via recoupment. There will be few if any situations when payments will be made to ineligible persons during the course of the review. Generally, the claimant's eligibility is not at issue, the only question being whether, or when and how, his payments should be subject to temporary recoupment deductions. The Oral Pre-Recoupment Hearing 73 Applying the Eldridge three element balancing test to the instant cases we conclude that the reconsideration claimants here are not constitutionally entitled to a prior oral hearing. 74 We conclude from applying the Eldridge test to the waiver cases that § 404(b) determinations require an oral pre-recoupment hearing. The questions to be asked and the factors to be considered in a § 404(b) waiver determination can not be adequately handled by written submissions. 21 75 The hearing need not take the form of a judicial or quasi-judicial trial. In accordance with Goldberg v. Kelly, supra, 397 U.S. at 267-71, 90 S.Ct. 1011, the claimant should be afforded the following rights: 76
77
78
79
80 5. to receive a statement written by the hearing officer setting forth his decision and the reasons and evidence in support of it; and 81 6. to receive adequate notice. Notice 82 Social Security recipients have a due process right to receive adequate notice of recoupment, plainly and clearly communicated. The notice should inform the recipient of the basis for the recoupment, the procedural rights available to the recipient, and the consequences if the recipient exercises those rights. Under present regulations, a notice informing a recipient of these matters might state: 83 1. the alleged overpayment and the reason for overpayment; 22 84 2. the recipient's right to request reconsideration or waiver, or both, and the nature of each; 23 85 3. that the recipient must request reconsideration or waiver in writing within thirty days of receipt of notice in order to exercise these rights; 86 4. that if waiver is requested, the recipient has a right to a pre-recoupment hearing (as set forth in this opinion); 87 5. that recoupment will begin unless reconsideration or waiver is requested, in which case recoupment will not begin until the request has been finally disposed of by way of the required review procedure; 88 6. that the Administration will send appropriate forms upon receipt of a request for reconsideration or waiver, and that the local office will assist the recipient in completing and submitting the forms upon request; 89 7. any other administrative relief available, and an explanation of how to request it. 90 The judgments of the district courts are affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cases are remanded.