Court Opinion

ID: 9468003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:01:39.302078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:37.905890
License: Public Domain

HUG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. The clear intent of the Veterans Act and the regulations was to make the monthly payment for dependents available for the purpose of supporting the veterans’ dependents — in this case, $51.11 for Mr. Whaley’s children. It is undisputed that he spent these funds for the benefit of these dependent, children in faithful performance of the clear purpose for which the money was sent to him.
The interpretation of the Veterans Administration regulations by the Secretary of HEW is not entitled to deference. To interpret those regulations, under which the veteran received the $51.11 payment for the benefit of his dependent children, so as to disqualify the veteran from receiving the SSI payment of $30.17 to which he would otherwise be entitled as an individual, is to say, in effect, that he is expected to use $30.17 of the $51.11 provided for his dependents, for his own support to bring him up to the minimum level contemplated by the SSI program. This interpretation also results in the veteran losing substantial medical benefits, which compounds the problem for the veteran.
This overly legalistic interpretation of the statutes and regulations in question so clearly violates their purpose, and operates so unfairly and non-sensically that it should not be sustained. I would affirm the judgment of the district court.