Campbell v. State Social Sec. Com'n
| Decision Date | 05 November 1945 |
| Citation | 191 S.W.2d 1015,239 Mo.App. 380 |
| Parties | Anna B. Campbell, v. State Social Security Commission |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Benton County; Hon. Dewey P. Thatch Judge.
Reversed.
J E. Taylor and B. Richards Creech for appellant.
(1) The trial court erred in its finding and judgment that the claimant did not have a fair hearing before the Commission. Sec. 9411, R. S. Mo. 1939. (2) The trial court erred in weighing the evidence. This is clearly a prerogative of the State Social Security Commission. Howlett v. State Social Security Commission, 149 S.W.2d 806, l. c. 809, par. 7; 347 Mo. 784; Sec. 9406, R. S. Mo. 1939; Chapman v. State Social Security Commission, 147 S.W.2d 157, l. c. 159 par. 6; 235 Mo.App. 698; Nichols v. State Social Security Commission, 164 S.W.2d 278, l. c. 281, par. 9, 349 Mo. 1148 Transf. 156 S.W.2d 760; Kelley v. State Social Security Commission, 161 S.W.2d 661, l. c. 662, par. 1, 236 Mo.App. 1058. (3) The trial court erred in finding and ruling that the award made by the State Social Security Commission was arbitrary and unreasonable. Howlett v. State Social Security Commission, supra; Sarah Smith v. State Social Security Commission, 153 S.W.2d 741; Dunnavant v. State Social Security Commission, 150 S.W.2d 1103, l. c. 1106, 235 Mo.App. 1107; Mary Garrison v. State Social Security Commission, 157 S.W.2d 792; Davis E. Hughes v. State Social Security Commission, 157 S.W.2d 223, l. c. 224; Buettner v. State Social Security Commission, 144 S.W.2d 865, 235 Mo.App. 653.
F. M. Brady and Edwin F. Brady for respondent.
(1) Certainly a fair hearing should mean at least a hearing before some one who acts disinterestedly and who does not take it upon himself to be a party to the action. Sec. 9411, R. S. Mo. 1939; Black's Law Dictionary (3 Ed), p. 745. (2) The trial court certainly has the right to sift the evidence and determine whether or not the award is supported by evidence, and whether substantial evidence bearing on the question to be determined justifies the award as a matter of law. Nichols v. State Social Security Commission, 164 S.W.2d 278. (3) Where the ultimate decision of the State Social Security Commission is not based on substantial evidence, the commission's findings must be characterized as arbitrary and unreasonable and determination reversed. Hooks v. State Social Security Commission, 165 S.W.2d 267; Howlett v. State Social Security Commission, 148 S.W.2d 806, 810.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered February 22, 1944, in the Circuit Court of Benton County, wherein that court held as arbitrary and unreasonable the denial by the State Social Security Commission of the application of respondent for old age assistance, and remanding the same to the Commission for redetermination.
The application of the respondent filed February 3, 1943, states, among other things, that she is a resident of Warsaw, Missouri; that she is 81 years of age; has no property except a $ 50 Government bond; owes $ 50 for treatments for a broken hip, which injury she had sustained four years previously; that she is unable to do any work or take care of herself, and that for four years she has not been out of the house where she is living. The application further states that she was then living at the home of her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Curt G. Smith, in Benton County; that said daughter was 61 years old, and son-in-law 62 years old; that both were in bad health and unable to look after the farm and stock, and unable to take care of the applicant; that the applicant needed attention every day, required medicine frequently and special kinds of food, which has to be purchased.
It appears from the application that respondent had been on the rolls of the Commission and had been removed therefrom November 10, 1942, for the reason assigned that . As far as the record shows, the entire evidence consisted of the testimony of witnesses produced in behalf of the applicant, (respondent).
The evidence tended to show that at the hearing before the Commission the respondent was unable, on account of her physical condition, to be present, but appeared by counsel; that her daughter, Mrs. Curt G. Smith, also appeared for her and in her behalf. The evidence was further to the effect that respondent is 81 years of age, mentally sound, but suffering from a broken hip, sustained several years prior to the date of the hearing; that she had been left a widow six years before she took up residence with her daughter, where she is now residing, and where she has resided the past 16 years; that some years prior to the hearing respondent had rented and thereafter sold her farm for approximately $ 2000; that she had lent some of this money to one of her grandsons, and that at the time of the accident to her hip she had spent $ 650 for necessary hospital and medical services; that before her accident she had given liberally to church, the Baptist's Home, Orphans' Home, and Baptist's Hospital; that she now has no money or property except a $ 50 Government bond. The evidence shows that she did not have enough money to settle her hospital bill, and that it was financed by note of her daughter and son-in-law. The applicant was shown to be unable to do any work; that she is unable to turn in bed without help, and unable to leave her room. She had been receiving medical attention up to the week of the hearing.
The evidence further shows that the daughter of the respondent with whom respondent lives is 62 years of age, afflicted with palsy, and is unable to do much housework without help. The son-in-law owns the farm on which respondent is now living, which is worth from $ 2000 to $ 2500, subject to an encumbrance of $ 700. He has reduced the mortgage to this amount by regular installments. He is 63 years of age, is suffering from a crippled leg, which is in a swollen and sore condition, and he is also troubled with rheumatism and neuritis in one shoulder, which interferes with his farm work; that on account of his disability he helps his wife do the housework and hires help for most of the farm work. In addition to the farm of 153 acres, above mentioned, he owns seven cows, three heifers, four calves, twenty-three sheep, one sow, eight pigs, three hundred chickens, fifteen turkeys, two mules and one mare; also farm implements and equipment.
Shortly before the hearing the son-in-law borrowed $ 200 for the purpose of buying cows, which loan he still owes. The total cash income for the year 1943 of himself and wife from all sources until the date of the hearing September 17, 1943, was $ 1017.50; their total household and farm expenses for that year would be $ 1700.80 including the payments on the mortgage, which payments he was keeping up regularly and thereby reducing the mortgage debt. Mr. Smith testified: . He stated that he had been buying corn and other feed; that he had eight acres of corn which had been destroyed by flood, but that he had corn on hand to last a while; that within the last year he had received from all farming operations, for the sale of livestock and poultry, $ 725, and for wool, milk and eggs, $ 292.50, or a total of $ 1017.50, which, added to respondent's old age assistance of $ 210, made a total income of $ 1227.50 for the year. He testified to items of expense for the year which totaled $ 1700.80, or a deficiency of $ 473.30 in cash receipts and expenditures. However, as stated, he testified that he still had on...
To continue reading
Request your trial