Legal Document

405 U.S. 208 92 Supreme Court Reporter 788 31 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 151 Elliot L. RICHARDSON, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant,v.Radie WRIGHT et al. Radie al., Appellants, versus RICHARDSON Nos. 70—161, 70—5211. Argued Jan. 13, 1972. Decided Feb. 24, Rehearings Denied March 27, See 1033, 1274, 1296. Patrick Gray, III, Washington, D.C., for Richardson. Robert N. Sayler, Wright others. PER CURIAM. 1 We noted probable jurisdiction these appeals, 404 819, 51, 30 47 (1971), to consider the applicability Goldberg Kelly, 397 254, 90 1011, 25 287 (1970), suspension termination disability benefit payments pursuant § 225 Social Security Act, 70 Statutes-at-Large 817, 42 Code KF62 425, implementing regulations Department Education, Welfare. Shortly before oral argument, we were advised that had adopted new regulations, effective December 1971, governing procedures be followed by Administration in determing whether suspend or terminate benefits. These include requirement a recipient benefits given notice proposed reasons therefor, plus an opportunity submit rebuttal evidence. In light development, believe appropriate course is withhold judicial action pending reprocessing, under determinations here dispute. If process results determination entitlements benefits, there will no need constitutional claim claimants are entitled make presentation. context comprehensive complex administrative program, must have reasonable evolve meet needs as they arise. Accordingly, vacate judgment District Columbia, Finch, 321 F.Supp. 383 with direction court remand cause retain such further proceedings, if any, may necessary upon completion procedure. 2 Vacated remanded. 3 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 4 While & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions join BRENNAN who reaches merits, add word about unwisdom policy pursued Court. 5 A three-judge district held unconstitutional, insofar it purported authorize Welfare payment social security without giving prior 'an participate' beneficiary. 383, 386. The remanded formulation consistent its opinion. Judge Matthews, troubled implication majority's opinion participation merely way written submissions might satisfy notions due process, dissented 'from so much seems suggest procedural requirements satisfied something less than 'opportunity' (to participate) specified (Goldberg 287).' Id., at 388. cross-appeals evaluate below Goldberg. 47. 6 Now, however, suggested has far complied instructions formulate should cases proceedings requirements. Such course, submit, would perversion philosophy expressed 7 below, captured essence her brief partial dissent: 8 'In welfare recipient, addition timely adequate detailing defend confronting any adverse witnesses presenting his own arguments evidence orally." F.Supp., 387—388. 9 It cannot seriously argued Secretary's 'new rules' comport They cure defect, but provision whatsoever presentation testimony confrontation witnesses.1 jurisdiction, thought, determine difference between 'welfare' 'disability' sufficient say one's Fifth Amendment right heard latter case, although not former.2 argument on this basis. Because inadequacy rules, Goldberg, question remain regardless outcome remand. 10 think unseemly, needlessly shuttle litigant, especially indigent, back forth from court, hoping exhaustion newly created remedies somehow other problem disappear relieve us obligation. No concession promising justice been made. issue was properly raised decision; all case controversy within meaning Article III Constitution satisfied. 11 BRENNAN, whom DOUGLAS MARSHALL join, 12 respectfully dissent. justifies today's sua sponte ground reprocessing 'results entitlement presentation.' (Emphasis Court.) Avoidance unnecessary decisions certainly preferred practice when appropriate. But inappropriate, indeed irresponsible, instance. avoid necessity deciding important presented even prevail reconsideration. being pressed over country. lists seven respect nondisability benefits.1 13 permit discontinuance affording beneficiaries either form mandated L.Ed.id Court, (DC 1971). require only beneficiary informed information which based response cut off.2 This procedure does afford beneficiary, requires old-age recipients, evidentiary hearing he personally appear offer confront cross-examine witnesses. Nor determined That also, responds, 'reasonable examine documentary evidence' relies and, conflict evidence, decision impartial decision-maker. said, necessary, 'a could held' 'submitted some contradicts possessed Administration.' 387. Thus, both Court's decision, omissions fatal adequacy procedures. imminently confronted another question, because resolution vitally essential administration Government avoiding responsible exercise practice. gain respite ourselves while Secretary, state agencies, continue confused uncertain. Moreover, thoroughly ably briefed sides, thoughtful well-considered majority dissenting opinions Today's disposition unjustified waste, our too sparse time energies, also energies three judges again their heavy calendars assemble what can empty exercise. abdication responsibility decide case. 14 Both appeal judgment. contend erred holding contends 'paper' afforded regulations. agree therefore enter requiring requisite Wheeler Montgomery, 280, 1026, 307 (1970). 15 Section provides '(i)f basis obtained submitted him, believes individual . ceased disability, until individual's ceased.' statute unconstitutional '(t)he exparte power granted section summary adjudication inconsistent process.' 16 challenge applied now-discarded Rather, insists 'hearing paper' constitutionally sufficient. differ recipients drastic consequences befall them erroneously discontinued. distinctions urged ordinarily adduced support differs markedly relied off undue monetary burden result hearings required. Neither distinction withstands analysis. 17 First. points out discontinue generally made wage reports employers medical examinations. view, 'is highly reliable type draws into veracity credibility.' Brief 10. 'The suspended terminated thus significantly terminations involved (Goldberg) rested.' 25. Hence, concludes, pre-termination suffice. 18 misconstrues said 'the one function only: produce initial validity department's grounds order protect against erroneous benefits.' U.S., 267, S.Ct., 1020. deny safeguards fulfill same cases. challenged 'as resting incorrect misleading factual premises misapplication rules policies facts particular cases.' 268, expressly put aside consideration situations 'where issues dispute where application rule law intertwined issues.' 268 n. 15, However normally based, however rarely involves questions credibility veracity, plain that, determinations, 'disabled' frequently depend legal found. precisely reason held. 19 recognizes often involve disputes. His procedures, well post-termination already available, presumably derive premise. file terminated; after termination, reconsideration, submissions, then de novo hearing, appellate review examiner's finally, review. Nevertheless, 'may' 'personal brought attention authorities tips, rumor gossip.' Yet irrelevant how matter 'brought authorities,' 'by gossip' otherwise. determination, simply continues eligible clear relevance situations.' '(O)ne (Goldberg), example, alleged failure cooperate suing estranged husband; drug addiction.' Ibid. second 'he refused accept counseling rehabilitation.' 256 2, 1014. Consequently, lost refusing authorities. That, cases, discontinued refuses cooperate. 20 To assertion pretermination required 'credibility veracity' issue, focuses certain language He first quotes statement '(p) articularly many wholly unsatisfactory decision.' 269, 1021. Apart obvious fact absolute intended limit solely those instances, demonstrate insufficient. 'are unrealistic option most lack educational attainment write effectively obtain professional assistance' 'do flexibility presentations; do mold decisionmaker appears regard important.' Significantly, fully applicable recipients. 21 statement, quoted Greene McElroy, 360 474, 496, 79 1400, 1413, 1377 (1959), that: 22 '(W)here governmental injuries individual, reasonableness depends findings, used prove Government's disclosed show untrue. more consists individuals whose memory faulty who, fact, perjurers persons motivated malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, jealousy. formalized protections cross-examination.' 270, 1021 (emphasis added). 23 Again, hardly indicates cross-examination available issue. An rights makes clear. introduced quotation pointing '(i)n almost every setting turn witnesses.' And, assuming novel doctrine purpose testing veracity,' justify depriving orally.' Finally, see suppose, nor doctors never Indeed, indicate may. Disability insurance State Manual 353. 24 premise entire 'only objective consideration—that previous conclusion rests information.' 26. Whether reliable, questionable. himself emphasizes 'specialized vocational evaluations' acquisition 'medical relevant data.' 28. event, grounds, pertinent here, found ceased. None fairly characterized term 'objective.' First, cessation Federal Regulations 404.1539(c); Claims 6706(e). judgment, subjective, reference Second, 'has regained ability engage substantial gainful activity demonstrated work activity.' 404.1539(a)(2); 6706(a). not, assert, rest 'upon regular (the beneficiary's) government.' performed' 'may demonstrate' longer disabled, gainful.' 'Substantial performance significant physical mental duties, combination both, productive nature.' finding 'substantial activity' nature performed, performance, th special conditions, employment, evaluation spent amount money earned §§ 404.1532—404.1534. 26 Third, establishes recovery. 404.1539(a)(1); 6706(c). examinations, follow necessarily Secretary,' disabled 'shall determinative question.' 404.1526. beneficiary's impairment severity prevent him engaging activity,' 404.1539(a)(1), obviously 'objective' report, standard multiple conflicting 'not uncommon.' Richardson Perales, 402 389, 399, 91 1420, 1426, 28 842 (1971). 27 'objectivity' persuasive situation suspended. 'Benefits whn received disability.' 6708. Here, definition, reversal rate asserted doubtful. According figures 37% requests reconsideration resulted 55% exercised won reversal. While, says, attest fairness system, supra, 410, 1432, confirm bureaucracy's difficulties reaching correct eligibility,' 264 12, 1019, program. 29 Second. participate great expense vast disruption system. justification denial was, specifically rejected 265—266, 1019—1020, offers considerations acceptance here. pointed 'that aid eligibility deprive very means live waits.' 264, 1018 original). applies equally beneficiaries, for, deny, definition unable would, therefore, liable sustain grievous loss awaiting claim.' view result, concluded 'fiscal expenses government, whatever magnitude, insufficient considering crippling blow dealt circumstances.' stress magnitude burden. doubtless greater expense.' 266, 1019. current two-step disability: agency, office conducted investigation, then, agency's Administration's Bureau Insurance, located Baltimore, Maryland.3 'either travel distances necessitate federal officials area resides, neither practical.' 28—29. 'Nor decisionmaking turned offices, conveniently staffing qualified judgment.' 29. 'would massive restructuring existing adjudicative 27. 32 Except bald assertion, nothing system agencies hearings. omits mention existence 404.917 404.941. assume 'restructuring' change timing apparently method comply various programs, 45 205.10, 36 Fed.Reg. 3034—3035, seem program provide 'some expense,' exaggerated 'rudimentary process,' id., 33 claims losses Trust Fund nearly $16 million per year still sums Title II programs considered.' presents. 34 As says 1971 38,000 average monthly $207. If, hearings, delayed two months, cost paid approach million. immediately apparent figure grossly inflated. 35 unwarranted assumption demand hearing. suggests suppose happen. cessations 10,941 6,885 affirmed 2,330 utilized present views termination. Under respond writing fewer experience abuse so. request lose. Yet, above, reconsiderations claim, conceivable, uphold 37 affirm true, reach figure, recover unlikely. 204(a)(1) 404(a)(1); 404.501—404.502, directs finds overpayment, refund decrease future entitled. 'disabled,' secure refund. hand, close later again, reduce Furthermore, 204(b), 404(b); 404.506 404.509, fault' defeat of' Act equity good conscience.' duty waive excess apply particularly proof. 404.508. Obviously, fund ineligible subject statutory waiver. 38 Fourth, stated two-month delay explain why chose period. receives discontinuance, Only difficult months just 39 223(a)(1) 423(a)(1); 6707, month ceases. occur least agency plaintiff Atkins' January. Insurance approved February Atkins end March. trust fund. 40 Viewing whole, 1969. death, age, forth, asserts apart 515,189 affected number, includes student's leaving school, marital status, death adoption child. Without number drops 186,035. dependents thereon. Putting total somewhat closer 100,000. terminations, making decisions. disputes exist. exist lesser extent programs. exist, objections inflated terminations. provided bare information, impossible, effect 41 entail additional burdens expense. Administrative usually does. weapons minimize increased costs.' Despite protestations contrary, welfare, '(m)uch drain fiscal resources reduced developing prompt skillful use personnel facilities.' point here: 'Indeed, itself cogent primacy public interest safeguards. uninterrupted receipt assistance, coupled State's terminated, clearly outweighs competing concern increase burdens.' 43 My answers contentions disagree judge. provisions issued amendments (DISM). DISM 265.1D now inform formally suspension. contemplated section, similar respecting (DISM 353.6A), encompass submissions. cause, like 'presents submission, submission invariably resolutions hotly disputed questions. See, e.g., Underwood Ribicoff, 298 Reporter, 2nd 850, 851 (CA4 1962). regarding cases: Doyle (C.A.5, Number 31,104); Moore (N.D.Calif., Civ. C—70—2573); Eldridge (W.D.Va., 70—C—52—A) (dismissed May 6, 1971); Dye (W.D.Pa., 70—1384) 8, Harvey 70—1460); Rodriquez Finch (D.Colo., C—2294) July 1, Olivas HEW C—3262). several Anderson (N.D.Ohio, 322 195, decided January C.A. 71—1317); Garofalo (S.D.N.Y., 70—5133) (remanded 16, Lindsay (W.D.N.C., 2794); Van Guilder (D.Minn., 4—70—386); Hopkins (E.D.Pa., 71—37); Shisslak H.E.W. (D.Ariz., 71—35 TUC, April 9, C.A.9, 71—2060); Baker (N.D.Ga., 13786, September Corona 70—2662); Recide (D.Hawaii, 70—3426); Mills (N.D.N.Y., 71—CV—208, October 1971).' 8—9, 9. Apparently involving advised, presently cover return recovery.' Supplemental 3. reverse ceased, agency. 421(c); 404.1520(c); 6701(c); 11—12, 17.

Classification Label: 1