Court Opinion

ID: 9487043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:06:52.303037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:04.207302
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although the majority opinion ably touches the bases required under the statute and the regulations, there are aspects of this case that are disturbing. We are dealing here with a frugal retiree of modest means, and the process for making this regulatory determination should be tailored to these circumstances.
It is not reassuring that the ALJ made a 42% error in calculating the claimant’s expenses, and that this egregious mistake passed undetected through the scrutiny of the Benefits Review Board. No doubt our efforts to reconstruct the numbers are adequate, but the credibility of the process is not enhanced.
In addition, in dealing with Benedict’s assets, there has been no apparent effort to assess liquidity or other relevant characteristics. How liquid is the farm land? Are there penalties connected with the liquidation of the certificates of deposit? Are withdrawals from the IRA taxable? How would liquidation of certain assets, such as the farmland, affect income? Merely adding the estimated values of Benedict’s assets without a *1145more searching consideration of their nature is at best a crude method for determining that repayment of $19,000 in one lump sum will be relatively painless.
No doubt there is a cushion here provided in large part- by Benedict’s very modest standard of living. It is ironic that this very frugality now tends to buttress the Department’s case for recovery of the black lung overpayments.