Court Opinion

ID: 9738163
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:43:39.883493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:04.073575
License: Public Domain

*677R. M. Shuster, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Petitioner was living with her husband during the six months in which it appears that the entire lump sum of over $20,000 was spent. Petitioner may have had no control over how it was spent, but she benefited from her husband’s purchases. She still lives in the trailer, has the waterbed, and presumably enjoyed the car, tv, microwave, gas grill and other items her husband purchased with the money. According to petitioner, her husband did not leave her until all the money was spent.
The majority implies that if petitioner were still living with her husband, the lower court rulings in this case would not have been improper. For purposes of applying the lump sum provision, it is irrelevant that petitioner’s husband left after the lump sum was spent, because they were a unit when they received the lump sum. 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(D) (1983). The majority emphasizes the provision allowing a state to shorten the period of ineligibility when "the lump sum income or a portion thereof becomes unavailable to the family for a reason beyond the control of the family. . . .” 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F) (1985). The lump sum income in this case became unavailable because the family spent it. I do not believe petitioner’s situation fits within this provision. Had her husband left petitioner promptly upon receiving the lump sum payment, or had he spent the money in ways which could not materially benefit petitioner, e.g., travel, I might be more inclined to agree that the money was "unavailable to petitioner.”
This case illustrates the need for workers’ compensation awards to be structured, rather than lump sum payments. The permitting of lump-sum redemptions totally defeats the purpose of work*678er’s compensation. After the lump-sum redemption has been dissipated, as it usually is, then the disabled worker and family become a burden to the taxpayer through some form of welfare assistance.
I would affirm the decision of the referee and the circuit court.