Court Opinion

ID: 9476289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:52:17.883161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:13.948076
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree that, under our precedent, the plaintiff class has standing. I dissent, however, because I do not agree with the majority’s holding that the Pickle Amendment, Pub.L. 94-566, Title V, § 503, 42 U.S.C.A. 1396a (note), applies to persons rendered ineligible for medicare by Title II COLA increases deemed to them from parents or from spouses who have never received SSI benefits under title XVI.
Our aim in interpreting a federal statute “is to ascertain the intent of Congress and to give effect to legislative will.” United States v. Taylor, 802 F.2d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1309, 94 L.Ed.2d 164 (1987). To do this, we look first to the statute’s language. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1547, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (Blum). The text of the Pickle Amendment is confusing, but it is not impenetrable. Pared down to its core elements, it mandates that medicare benefits
... be provided to any individual ... not eligible for benefits under title XVI ... if ... such individual would be ... eligible for benefits under ... title XVI except for ... income received by such individual and his spouse ... which [is] attributable to increases in ... benefits ... under title II ... which have occurred[,] ... in the case of the individual, since the last month ... such individual was ... eligible for ... benefits under ... title XVI and ... title II and, in the case of such individual’s spouse[,] ... since the last month for which such spouse was ... eligible for ... benefits under ... title XVI and ... under ... title II.
The text of the amendment, therefore, contains clearly defined limitations on its scope: it preserves medicare benefits only for individuals who would otherwise lose them due to title II COLA increases “which have occurred ... since the last month” that the individual or spouse was eligible for benefits under both title XVI and title II. It does not purport to preserve the medicare benefits for individuals who would lose them due to any increases in title II COLA’s, whenever occurring. The majority nevertheless develops a textual ambiguity by “extractpng]” the “initial operative language” from the statute. This, it claims it can “fairly” do. I disagree, if “fairly” means without doing violence to the language Congress employed. I suggest that “extracting” the language is something less than fair because doing so means focusing on that portion of the amendment that contains the general statement of purpose while ignoring that portion of the very same sentence that contains the limitations on this purpose which Congress expressed simultaneously. The majority’s analysis looks at the general purpose while completely ignoring the express limitations on this purpose and then claims there is an ambiguity because the broader and the narrower somehow conflict. Based on this faulty analysis, the *1022majority finds a “potential conflict” between the clause requiring the disregard of spousal COLA’s “since the last month for which [the] spouse was ... eligible for” both title XVI and title II benefits and “the earlier language suggesting disregard of all COLA’s.” There is, in fact, no conflict at all when the entire sentence is read and the “earlier language” upon which the majority focuses is left in context.
The two questions before us are whether the Pickle Amendment mandates disregard of title II COLA increases payable to a spouse who has never been eligible for title XVI benefits and whether it mandates disregard of such increases payable to a parent. The Secretary contends that the statute does not mandate the disregard of COLA increases payable to persons in either category. I agree.
The language of the statute extends medicare coverage to persons who would be eligible for SSI benefits “except for amounts of income received by such individual and his spouse” which are attributable to COLA increases. It says nothing at all about persons rendered ineligible for SSI benefits because of income received as COLA increases by their parents. Applying the ancient and elementary principle of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alterius, expression of one thing is the exclusion of another, it is plain that the Pickle Amendment does not require the disregard of COLA increases payable to parents.
It is equally plain that the language of the Pickle Amendment does not mandate the disregard of COLA’s payable to spouses never eligible for SSI. In regard to spousal COLA’s, the statute mandates disregard of “income ... attributable to increases in ... [title II] benefits ... since the last ... month for which such spouse was ... eligible for (and received) benefits under ... title XVI and was entitled to a ... benefit under ... title II.” Obviously, there cannot have been “increases ... since the last month” for which the spouse was “eligible for (and received)” benefits under title XVI if, in fact, the spouse has never been eligible for title XVI benefits at all. Even the majority concedes that “the specificity of the ... clause relating to spouses lends some support to the Secretary’s argument.”
Since it is plain and unambiguous on the face of the statute that the Pickle Amendment does not cover COLA increases of parents or of spouses never eligible for SSI, I would hold that resort to the legislative history is neither necessary nor appropriate in this case. “ ‘[W]hen we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.’ ” Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 55 — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 1860, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987), quoting Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 701, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981); see also Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 184 n. 29, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 2296 n. 29, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978); Blum, 465 U.S. at 896, 104 S.Ct. at 1548 (“we look first to the statutory language and then to the legislative history if the statutory language is unclear.”) (emphasis added); Mobil Sales & Supply Corp. v. Panamax Venus, 804 F.2d 541, 542 (9th Cir.1986). The majority, however, disregards this prudent approach to statutory interpretation and argues that the legislative history of the Pickle Amendment mandates a result contrary to what I believe is the statute’s plain meaning. Even assuming some review of history is appropriate in this case, when the plain language of a statute “appears to settle the question before us, ... we look to the legislative history to determine only whether there is ‘clearly expressed legislative intention’ contrary to that language, which would require us to question the strong presumption that Congress expresses its intent through the language it chooses.” INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, — U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1213 n. 12, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
I find no such clearly expressed contrary legislative intention here. The majority relies first on the title of the amendment, “Preservation of Medicaid Eligibility for Individuals who Cease to be Eligible for Supplemental Security Income Benefits on Account of Cost-of-Living Increases in Social Security Benefits.” In a previous case *1023interpreting the Pickle Amendment, we stated that the amendment’s title should be used only to resolve ambiguities, not to create them, and that it “should not be used to vary the plain meaning of the statute.” Lynch v. Rank, 747 F.2d 528, 532 (9th Cir.1984), modified, 763 F.2d 1098 (9th Cir.1985) (Rank). Nevertheless, even if we did look to the title for a clear manifestation of congressional purpose contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, we would not find one. The title itself is ambiguous in the context before us since it is unclear whether it refers to the preservation of medicaid eligibility for all individuals who cease to be eligible for SSI benefits or only for certain such individuals. All the title indicates unambiguously is that the amendment was intended to preserve the benefits for someone.
Nor does the sparse language of the Senate report upon which the majority relies, S.Rep. No. 1265, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5997-6032 (Senate Report), evidence a “clearly expressed legislative intention” contrary to the amendment’s plain meaning. The report states that “the committee bill would provide that no recipient of SSI would lose eligibility for medicaid as the result of the operation of the cost-of-living benefit increase provision under title II.” Senate Report at 6001 (emphasis added). Similar statements appear later in the report, Senate Report at 6022, and in the associated House Conference Report, No. 94-1745, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6033, 6047 (House Conference Report). These statements that “no recipient of SSI would lose eligibility,” however, cannot be taken literally. It is undisputed that the amendment does not preserve the medicaid eligibility of individuals who lost SSI eligibility during the six month period between the passage of the bill and April 1977 — the start up date that the bill provides — let alone those who lost eligibility before the bill’s enactment. See House Conference Report at 6047. Clearly some recipients of SSI could lose eligibility during the period before April 1977, but Congress, despite the breadth of the language in its reports, obviously did not intend to help them. It is no safer to assume solely on the basis of the same general language that Congress intended to mandate disregard of COLA increases accruing to parents or spouses.
None of the brief passages in the legislative history specifically mention anything about COLA increases payable to spouses or parents. It is therefore unclear from the legislative history alone whether Congress meant COLA’s payable to these groups to be disregarded, or whether Congress had even considered the question. The congressional reports are uninformative and ambiguous on this point. In fact, only from the text of the amendment itself do we learn that Congress intended to mandate disregard of COLA increases accruing to spouses who had once been eligible for SSL The same statutory text indicates plainly that COLA increases accruing to parents and to spouses never eligible for SSI are not to be disregarded. The legislative history contains nothing that we can reasonably treat as a “clearly expressed legislative intention” to the contrary.
Finally, the majority contends that Congress cannot have intended what the plain meaning of the statute indicates because “application of the plain meaning would lead to absurd results.” The result here is clearly asymmetrical, and is perhaps anomalous, as the majority suggests. As we observed in Rank, however, “[ijnequities abound at the fringes of the Pickle Amendment.” Rank, 747 F.2d at 536. But this does not mean that we can ignore the statute’s plain language. “[I]f one must ignore the plain language of a statute to avoid a possibly anomalous result, ‘ “[t]he short answer is that Congress did not write the statute that way.” ’ ” North Carolina Department of Transportation v. Crest Street Community Council, Inc., — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 336, 341, 93 L.Ed.2d 188 (1986), quoting Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 79, 105 S.Ct. 479, 83 L.Ed.2d 472 (1984), quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23, 104 S.Ct. 296, 300, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983).
The Pickle Amendment does not mandate disregard of COLA increases payable to *1024parents or to spouses never eligible for SSI. The text of the statute is clear, the legislative history evidences no clear congressional intent to the contrary, and the asymmetry of the result is simply not pertinent. I would reverse.