Opinion ID: 357142
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the vocational training institution exception.

Text: 30 In its definition of inmate of a public institution 20 C.F.R. § 416.231(b) (3) provides: 31 A person is not considered an inmate when he is in a public educational or vocational training institution, for the purposes of securing education or vocational training. 32 Appellants' final contention is that even if they are otherwise found to be inmates at AVRC for purposes of the statute, they qualify for this regulatory exception. AVRC, as an integral part of its rehabilitation program, attempts to prepare its patients to cope with the stresses of life outside the institution, including the stress involved in the daily routine associated with employment. Accordingly, evidence was submitted which showed that patients at AVRC receive work assignments and supervision to facilitate their rehabilitation. 33 The administrative law judge concluded that to qualify for the vocational training exception an institution's primary purpose must be the training of persons in job skills. He ruled that the primary purpose of treatment at AVRC is not training in job skills, stating, Rather than training, the work activity (at AVRC) may be described and has been described as occupational therapy. 34 Appellants concede in their brief that the primary purpose of AVRC is not vocational training. In the words of the Centers' director, the purpose of the center is to alleviate suffering and to restore the physical, mental and social health of people suffering from disabling illness and disability. However, appellants contend that the primary purpose standard applied by the administrative law judge is inconsistent with the act, because it frustrates the congressional intent that disabled individuals return to gainful employment as soon as possible. 35 Certainly Congress must have intended that disabled individuals return to work when possible, but this does not necessitate the creation of an exception to the inmate exclusion for every disabled person who can show that he or she receives some work experience as part of a rehabilitation program. The Secretary promulgated this exception and his delineation of its scope is to be afforded deference unless it manifestly frustrates the purpose of the act. The primary purpose test used by the Secretary is not in conflict with the purposes of the Act. 36 Furthermore, our review of this factual finding is limited to a determination whether there is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the administrative law judge. In this regard it is evident that the determination that AVRC is not a vocational training institution is amply supported. Appellants concede that vocational training is only a secondary aspect of their program. The actual work experiences at AVRC are limited to support services required to operate the centers. The director of AVRC himself explained: 37 The emphasis is more upon the establishment of patterns of regular work attendance and performance, and the acceptance of responsibility and supervision than it is upon specific vocational training, though the latter is available to some extent. R. 67-68. 38 A holding that AVRC is a vocational training institution would ignore the apparent fact that the Centers operate not to train individuals with new skills to enable them to enter the job market, but to develop physical, psychological and social health in its patients. 39 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 40