Court Opinion

ID: 9465727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:53:57.696391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:20.013351
License: Public Domain

MERRILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. I would reverse and restore the decision of the ALJ.
Under the Secretary’s construction of § 1631(b), as adopted by the majority opinion, the recipient is deprived of any ability to secure credit on the basis of his SSI payments that would survive death. Without such credit, private homes for the aged and infirm are not likely to welcome those without independent financial resources and the Act fails to provide adequately for those most in need of their SSI payments. The Act, with the Secretary’s blessing, seems to work most zealously against its own apparent purpose.
The majority opinion relies on the fact that § 1631(b) does not include the words “other persons” which are to be found in § 1631(a). However Regulations 416.601(a) and (b) are broadly stated to permit payment to one other than the eligible individual in all cases where it appears to the administration that the interest of the recipient would be served. That should cover this case.
In footnote 7 the majority opinion rejects the application of those regulations to § 1631(b), stating that to apply them would “abrogate the limits of [that section] that Congress intended to apply to underpayments. Instead, underpayments would essentially be subject to the same rule as are regular payments under § 1631(a)(2).”
If full force is to be given to the literal distinction between §§ 1631(a) and (b), on which the majority relies, the result would be that while regular payments can be made to a representative payee, adjustments for underpayments never can. I can see little sense in such a distinction. But more: As I understand the practices of the Secretary and his interpretations of the regulation, the emphasis has not been on the difference between regular payments and underpayments. Rather, it has been on whether the recipient is living or dead. The Appeals Council in this case relied on this living/dead distinction as quoted by the government in its brief. “[I]t is evident from § 416.601(a) that payment through a representative payee is contemplated only where the eligible individual is living.” The cited regulation does not expressly impose this condition. But in any event it would appear that the Secretary quite sensibly does not hesitate to adjust for an underpayment by paying a representative if the recipient is alive.
The legislative history as quoted in the majority opinion explicitly provides only that underpayments are not to be made to the estate of a deceased recipient. This makes sense to me, since otherwise general creditors could reach the payment. However, nothing in the quoted legislative histo*159ry would preclude applying Regulation 416.-601(b) to § 1631(b) and to Regulation 416.-542(b) so long as payment did not reach the estate. The ALJ as quoted in the majority opinion showed just how that could be done. The payment could be made directly to the representative payee on his making a proper showing of entitlement.
The question, then, as I perceive it, is not whether the statutory distinction between underpayment and regular payment must be respected literally. (The Secretary himself apparently does not respect it.) The question is whether (assuming that payment is not made to the estate of a deceased recipient) the distinction between living and dead recipients (not required by the statute, or even explicitly by the regulations), can be said to satisfy the general congressional policy underlying the Act. I would say no.