Opinion ID: 441817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: spousal deeming in the state supplemental benefits program

Text: 31 Some members of the plaintiff class are themselves eligible for SSI benefits but are married to individuals who are not eligible. Those class members, in addition to challenging the SSI calculations discussed in Part I, also challenge the Secretary's administration of the State Supplemental Program (SSP), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e, as it relates to recipients in their situation. 32 The State Supplemental Program is an optional program which Congress enacted as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments to permit states to provide benefits in addition to SSI benefits. Pub.L. No. 92-603, Title III, Sec. 301, 86 Stat. 1474 (1972) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e (1976 & Supp. V 1981)). See H.R.Rep. No. 231 at 199, reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 5185. The statute provides that a state may allocate funds for supplementary assistance and contract with the federal government to administer the program. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e. Eligible persons receive a single check each month, including the SSI and SSP benefits, and the state reimburses the federal government for the state portion of the check. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e(d). Under this program, therefore, the states decide whether and how much to supplement the federal benefit, but the federal government administers the program. 33 For purposes of this appeal, the basic method the Secretary uses for calculation of the SSI and SSP benefits may be described as follows. The named plaintiff, Karen Conant, is eligible for SSI, but her husband is ineligible. The federal regulations applicable to this mixed couple require the Secretary to calculate the countable income of the ineligible spouse and combine it with the countable income of the eligible spouse. This is called spousal deeming and is used to determine both the federal (SSI) and the state (SSP) benefit. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.2025(b)(1). The amount of each benefit that the recipient actually receives is the difference between the combined countable income and the relevant benefit rate. 34 At this point, however, the Secretary's practices with respect to SSI and SSP for mixed couples diverge. For SSI benefits, the federal regulations require that the combined income be subtracted from the federal benefit rate for eligible couples--those in which both husband and wife are eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 416.1163(c), 416.2025(b)(1). For the SSP benefit, however, the Secretary has chosen to subtract the combined countable income of both husband and wife from the state benefit rate for eligible individuals, as opposed to eligible couples. Social Security Administration, POMS Sec. SI 00850.220. 5 The SSP benefit to the recipient is thus smaller than it would be if the eligible couple rate were used. The plaintiffs therefore argue that the Secretary should apply the base SSP rate for eligible couples rather than eligible individuals when calculating SSP for mixed couples. 35 The Secretary's response is based upon agency regulations that permit the states to choose among nine different benefit rates for persons in up to nine categories including five different living arrangements. 6 The State of California has not chosen to recognize a mixed couple living arrangement. It has chosen to recognize only eligible individuals and eligible couples. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code Sec. 12200 (Cum.Supp.1984). Its categories relevant to this litigation thus parallel the federal categories. 36 The Secretary urges us to hold that because the state has not chosen the mixed couple category, the Secretary is required to apply the rate for eligible individuals as opposed to the rate for eligible couples. The Secretary offers no explanation, however, for why the agency has no discretion in deciding which category to use or for why the rate for individuals is more appropriate than the rate for couples. In the legislative history of SSP Congress indicated that the same method of calculation was to be used in determining both SSP and SSI benefits. H.R.Rep. No. 231 at 199-201, reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 5185-87. Yet the agency's use of the rate for individuals in calculating SSP benefits is inconsistent with its practice in calculating SSI benefits. In calculating SSI, a mixed couple is treated as an eligible couple. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 416.1163(c), 416.2025(b)(1). The agency's SSP practice is also inconsistent with HHS's own regulation that, in the absence of any specific contrary regulation, the agency follow the same deeming rules when calculating SSP as it does when calculating SSI. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.2005(d). 7 The challenged practice, as described in the agency's operations manual, POMS Sec. SI 00850.220, is authorized by no regulation and contrary to its SSI deeming rules. 37 The government's reply brief contains an allusion to an agreement which the dissenting opinion states this opinion sets aside. We have searched in vain in this record for any agreement which prescribes a California SSP practice inconsistent with federal SSI practice. The government has not provided any supporting citation. 38 We therefore conclude that the Secretary has failed to follow the agency's own regulations and has acted in a manner contrary to the legislative intent that SSP and SSI be uniformly, consistently and efficiently administered. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e(b); H.R.Rep. No. 231 at 199-201, reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 5185-87. Our conclusion is in accord with the district court's decision in Bouchard v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 583 F.Supp. 944 (D.Mass.1984), in which the court observed that the Secretary has underestimated her authority and her obligations under the Social Security Act. Bouchard, at 953. As we noted in our holding on the first issue in this case, while the agency practice is entitled to deference, courts are not obliged to stand aside and rubber-stamp their affirmance of administrative decisions that they deem inconsistent with the statutory mandate or that frustrate a congressional policy underlying a statute. Volkswagenwerk, 390 U.S. at 272, 88 S.Ct. at 935 (quoting National Labor Relations Board v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291, 85 S.Ct. 980, 988, 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965)). Moreover, we must overturn the agency practice if it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation, as we also have found. Bouchard, at 953 (citing Tallman, 380 U.S. at 16-17, 85 S.Ct. at 801-802). 39 Our holding that the Secretary should apply the eligible couple benefit rate is limited to California, where the only available relevant living arrangement categories are eligible individuals and eligible couples. We express no opinion with respect to the appropriate rate levels in states that have chosen different living arrangement categories under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.2030(a)(2). 40 The judgment of the district court with respect to section 1611(h) of the Social Security Amendments of 1972, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382(h), is affirmed. The judgment with respect to spousal deeming under section 301 of the Amendments, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1382e, is reversed with instructions to the district court to consider remaining issues related to class certification and remedy.