Bailey v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 07 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C-2-89-588. |
| Parties | Frances V. BAILEY, SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Theodore Richard Saker, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Joseph E. Kane, U.S. Attys. Office, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant.
Plaintiff, Frances Bailey, brings this action against the Secretary of Health and Human Services challenging the constitutionality of the benefit offset provisions of 20 C.F.R. § 404.408a, promulgated pursuant to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(a). This cause is currently before the Court on the parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On May 25, 1987, Frances Bailey filed an application for widow's insurance benefits based on her deceased husband's earnings record. Mrs. Bailey stated in her application that she was retiring in July 1987 from her job as a teacher and that she anticipated receiving a pension beginning in June 1987 from the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (Tr. 49-50).
Subsequent letters from the State Teachers Retirement System established that plaintiff's pension began in July 1987 at a rate of $1,506.81 a month (Tr. 62). Further, the Retirement System determined that plaintiff was not eligible for a retirement pension prior to July 1986, because she had 21.3 years of credit and needed 25 years (Tr. 61). Plaintiff became eligible for a pension on July 1, 1986, after she had "purchased" 4.33 years of credit for her earlier employment in Federal Civilian Service. Id. The Social Security Administration found that plaintiff's government pension of $1,506.81 precluded a payment of her widow's benefit.
Under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "the findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive...." Substantial evidence is "`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L.Ed.2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 217, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). It is "`more than a mere scintilla.'" Id. LeMaster v. Weinberger, 533 F.2d 337, 339 (6th Cir.1976). The Secretary's findings of fact must be based upon the record as a whole. Harris v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 431, 435 (6th Cir.1985); Houston v. Secretary, 736 F.2d 365, 366 (6th Cir.1984); Fraley v. Secretary, 733 F.2d 437, 439-440 (6th Cir.1984). In determining whether the Secretary's decision is supported by substantial evidence, the Court must "`take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight.'" Beavers v. Secretary of Health, Educ. and Welfare, 577 F.2d 383, 387 (6th Cir.1978) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488, 71 S.Ct. 456, 464, 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951)); Wages v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 755 F.2d 495, 497 (6th Cir.1985).
Before a ruling on a motion for summary judgment can be made, the dispositive issues and factual inquiries relevant to the motion must be clearly delineated. With this standard in mind, the Court will proceed to consideration of the pending motions.
Prior to 1977, the Social Security Act required men seeking widower's benefits to prove that they had received at least one-half support from their spouses; however, women seeking benefits were not required to meet any dependency test. In March 1977, the Supreme Court held that this distinction violated the equal protection requirement of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199, 97 S.Ct. 1021, 51 L.Ed.2d 270 (1977). In response to this decision, Congress eliminated the dependency test, but also provided that survivor's benefits for both men and women would be offset by the full amount of any pension the claimant received as a result of employment not covered by social security, from a federal, state, or local government agency (pension offset provision). Pub.L. 95-216, § 334(c)(2), 91 Stat. 1544, 1545, which states, in pertinent part:
The amount of a widow's insurance benefit ... shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to the amount of any monthly periodic benefit payable to such widow (or surviving divorced wife) for such month which is based upon her earnings while in the service of the Federal Government or any State (or any political subdivision thereof ...) if, on the last day she was employed by such entity, such service did not constitute "employment" as defined in section 210.
Congress provided, however, that the amendments would not apply to any individual who became eligible for support benefits during the 60 month period December 1977 to December 1982 and who would have been entitled to benefits prior to their adoption. Pub.L. No. 95-216, § 334(g), 91 Stat. 1546. Accordingly, women who became eligible for support benefits during this period could receive survivor's benefits without making any showing of dependency and their benefits would not be subject to the pension offset provision. This 60 month window was provided to protect the reasonable expectations of many women who, in making their retirement plans, had relied on receiving the social security survivor's benefits regardless of their dependency status.1
The Secreatary implemented 20 C.F.R. § 404.408a to clarify when reduction of spousal benefits is required. The regulation states, in pertinent parts:
In order for plaintiff to receive both her pension benefits and widow benefits she must have been entitled to pension income prior to December 1, 1982. Otherwise, the offset provision is applicable. Pub.L. No. 95-216, § 334(g), 91 Stat. 1546.
Plaintiff's husband, William Bailey, died in 1984. Mrs. Bailey did not file her application for widow benefits until March 1987. On her application she indicated that she intended to retire and would receive a pension from the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio beginning on July 1, 1987. (Id.)
The problem arose when the Secretary discovered that Mrs. Bailey did not become entitled to her State Teachers Retirement pension until July 1, 1986. A letter from the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio indicates that as of November 30, 1982, the final day on which plaintiff must have qualified for her pension, Ms. Bailey had only 21.30 years of pension credit. (Tr. 61.) Twenty-five years of credit, however, was needed before plaintiff was entitled to her pension. Id. Sometime thereafter plaintiff apparently "purchased" an additional 4.33 years of credit based on former Federal Civilian Service. This qualified plaintiff for her pension benefits as of July 1, 1986. Id. Had Mrs. Bailey purchased the 4.33 years of credit prior to November 30, 1982, then she would have been eligible to retire on that date. Id.
Because Mrs. Bailey was not entitled to her State Teachers Retirement pension prior to December 1, 1982, the offset provisions of § 404.408a were applied. Mrs. Bailey did not qualify for any exception under the regulation,2 thus, her widow's benefits were reduced by an amount equal to her monthly payment from her pension. Since Mrs. Bailey was to receive $1,506.81 a month from the State Teachers Retirement System and only $541.70 in widow benefits, the entire amount of the widow benefits was offset.
Plaintiff does not question the Secretary's findings of fact, but rather challenges the constitutionality of the regulation. She asserts that "the action of the defendant is nothing short of confiscatory of her vested property rights." (Plaintiff's Amended Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4.) Plaintiff has done no more to articulate her claim, therefore, we presume she intends to assert that the regulation deprives her of property without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Finding no support for this contention, we hereby GRANT defendant's motion for summary judgment.
In Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 80 S.Ct. 1367, 4 L.Ed.2d 1435 (1960), the Supreme Court addressed a similar claim with respect to Social Security benefits. In Nestor, an alien who had become eligible for old-age benefits was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party. This being one of the benefit-termination grounds specified in Section 202(n) of the Social Security Act, appellee's benefits were stopped. Nestor brought suit alleging that he had been denied an accrued property right in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
In rejecting the argument, the Supreme Court held that a person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. Commissioner of Social Sec., Civil No. 07-3154 (JBS).
...79 L.Ed.2d 646 (1984) (some citations omitted); see also Vincent v. Apfel, 191 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 1999); Bailey v. Sullivan, 771 F.Supp. 215, 216-17 (S.D.Ohio 1991). "In order to protect the reliance interests" of "individuals . . . who had retired or were about to retire and who had......