Opinion ID: 419212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Use of Payments for Medical Services.

Text: 27 Both the prior and current versions of the SSI regulations provide that certain medical services receipts are not to be treated as income. Grunfeder contends that since she uses part of her pension to pay psychiatric fees, the pension payments are not income. We disagree. 28 The regulation pertaining to the treatment of medical services as income that was in effect at the time Grunfeder's benefits were terminated is on its face inapplicable to Grunfeder's reparations. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.1109(a) (1979). Even if Grunfeder's pension is in fact spent on medical services, it is not a third-party payment for medical care or medical services furnished to a beneficiary required under the old regulation. Id. (emphasis added). First, the pension is a payment, unrestricted in use, which could be applied by Grunfeder to meet her basic nonmedical needs. Furthermore, even if unrestricted payments are excluded from income under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.1109(a) if explicitly earmarked for medical use, her payments were not so earmarked. The GRA provides that annuities are for a diminishment of working capacity. 2 Further, the language of the documents establishing Grunfeder's awards does not designate her pension for use for medical care and services. By contrast to her one-time lump sum payment, awarded in the final settlement of July 8, 1968, which is designated for medical assistance, the reparations she continues to receive pursuant to the partial settlement of June 12, 1968, are designated for loss in working capacity. Nor do the current regulations put into effect subsequent to her termination support Grunfeder's position. 3 29 Because neither the statute nor the regulations exempt payments from the category of income simply because the recipient spends all or part of them on medical services, all of Grunfeder's monthly pension payments are section 1382a(a) income. 4 30