Court Opinion

ID: 9479262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:12:52.681218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:46:54.790441
License: Public Domain

LAY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The panel majority has determined that the Iowa Department of Human Services (IHS) may adopt the Social Security Administration’s finding of nondisability for pur*441poses of receiving Supplemental Security Income benefits. I must respectfully dissent.
I agree with Judge Vietor that Rousseau v. Bordeleau, 624 F.Supp. 355 (D.R.I.1985) is both on point and persuasive. As Judge Vietor stated:
IHS policy violates the Social Security Act and regulations adopted pursuant to the Act by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States have the authority to determine disability. IHS must determine after a requested evidentiary hearing facts that determine Medicaid eligibility. It must determine disability independently unless it has delegated that determination.
Armstrong v. Norman, No. 86-889-B, slip op. at 1 (S.D.Iowa Mar. 2, 1988) (citations omitted). Iowa had not made the required delegation. Further, as Judge Vietor noted, “[tjhere has been ample time since Rousseau was decided for Congress to amend the statute or for HHS to revise its regulations to overcome Rousseau’s holding, but changes have not been made.” Id. I would find that Iowa is compelled to make an independent determination of non-disability under the circumstances presented here.