Chapman v. State Social Security Comm.

• Decision Date: 27 January 1941
• Docket Number: No. 19793.,19793.
• Citation: Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 147 S.W.2d 157, 235 Mo.App. 698 (Mo. App. 1941)
• Parties: NARISSA BELLE CHAPMAN, RESPONDENT, v. THE STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, APPELLANT.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

147 S.W.2d 157

NARISSA BELLE CHAPMAN, RESPONDENT, v.THE STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, APPELLANT.

No. 19793.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

January 27, 1941.

Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court.— Hon. Ellis Beavers, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

Roy McKittrick,Attorney-General, and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for appellant.

(1)This court has jurisdiction of appeals under the State Social Security Act.White v. State Social Security Commission of Missouri, 137 S.W. (2d) 569.(2) There is substantial evidence to support the award or decision of the State Social Security Commission.Therefore, this court should affirm that award or decision.Valeri v. Lowe et al., 26 Fed. Supp. 761, 762;Sec. 16, page 736, Laws of Missouri, 1939;State v. Gregory, 96 S.W. (2d) 47, 51, 52;American Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al. v. United States et al., 299 U.S. 232, 236;Swayne v. Hoyt, H. et al. United States, 300 U.S. 297, l.c. 304.(3) Under the evidence in this case the State Social Security Commission is authorized in finding this plaintiff had disposed of property in order to receive old age assistance or pension.Sec. 11, page 739, Laws of Missouri, 1939; Isaac R. Johns v. State Social Security Commission of Missouri, not yet officially reported;1 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, sec. 134, page 215;2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence, sec. 547, page 1005.(4)The court erred in finding for this claimant for the reason there is no evidence that she is in need.Sec. 11, page 739, Laws of 1939;Sec. 12, page 735, Laws of 1939;28 Corpus Juris, sec. 15, page 626;In re White's Estate, 266 N.Y. Supp. 765, 768;Hays Admrs. v. Pattrick, 99 S.W. (2d) 805; Webster's Unabridged Int. Dict. (2 Ed.); Isaac R. Johns v. State Social Security Commission of Missouri, not yet officially reported.

Ernst & Williams for respondent.

(1) This Pension Act is a remedial statute, not a penal statute.Price v. State Social Security Commission, 121 S.W. (2d) 298.(2) The words resources, income and means refer to property or capabilities of producing property and do not include gifts which may or may not be made at some future time.Moore v. State Social Security Commission, 122 S.W. (2d) 391.

MIDGLEY, S.J.

RespondentNarissa Belle Chapman made application for old age assistance, which was denied by the State Social Security Commission.The circuit court on appeal remanded the proceedings to the Commission for redetermination.This is an appeal from the circuit court's judgment.

The Commission denied respondent's application for two reasons: First, it found that she had assigned or transferred property for the purpose of rendering herself eligible for benefits; second, it found that she had income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health, and was not in need.A previous application for benefits had been made and denied in 1938, and no appeal was taken.The present application was filed in May, 1939, rejected in August, 1939, application for hearing by the Commission was granted, and evidence heard by a referee October 24, 1939, and the Commission's decision on such record was rendered January 3, 1940.The entire present proceeding, therefore, is under the 1939statutes, Sections 12967b-11,12967b-12, and12967b-16, Missouri Statutes Annotated, which amended the corresponding Sections 12967a-11,12967a-12, and12967a-16, in the 1937State Social Security Code.We shall, for brevity, refer to these statutes in this opinion as the old and the new Sections 11,12, and16.

As to our jurisdiction:

Discussion of the facts should be prefaced by consideration of the extent of our jurisdiction under these statutes.The right to old age assistance being purely statutory, and non-existent at common law, the claim of any person under the statutes is subject to the provisions and limitations which the Legislature creating the right has placed thereon, whether in matters of substance, procedure, or remedy.The courts must interpret and apply such statutes in the manner they perceive the Legislature intended.

The old section 16 provides that on appeal "such appeal shall be tried in the circuit courtde novo on the sole question of whether the applicant is entitled to benefits and not as to the amount thereof."Obviously, under such statute, the circuit court was the ultimate judge of the facts which determined right to benefits.

The new section 16(Laws 1939, p. 736), provides that the evidence at the hearing before the Commission shall be preserved and become part of the case record, and when benefits are denied and appeal taken, this record is certified to the circuit court."Such appeal shall be tried in the circuit court upon the record of the proceedings had before and certified by the State Commission ..."There is no trial de novo, as under the old statute.The court's sole jurisdiction under the new law is to "determine whether or not a fair hearing has been granted the individual" and "if the court shall decide for any reason that a fair hearing and determination of the applicant's eligibility and rights under this act was not granted the individual by the State Commission, or that its decision was arbitrary and unreasonable,the court shall, in such event, remand the proceedings for redetermination of the issues by the State Commission."Under the new section, the Commission, not the courts, is the forum where the facts are ultimately to be decided.The sole function of the courts is to see that such decision is made after a fair hearing and is not arbitrary and unreasonable.We cannot conclude that the Commission's hearing or decision in any case is "unfair," or "arbitrary," or "unreasonable," simply because, with conflicting evidence or with possible conflicting inferences from the evidence, each of which might be reasonable, we would, if empowered ultimately to decide the fact, have reached a different conclusion than was reached by the Commission.Remand for "redetermination" would be proper only if we conclude that a fair and reasonable opportunity to present her evidence was not given the applicant, or if all of the substantial evidence in the case reasonably tended to support only the conclusion that claimant was entitled to old age assistance under the statutory provisions.This conclusion is in accord with the decisions of the Springfield Court of Appeals.[Johns v. State Social Security Commission, 143 S.W. (2d) 161;Clay v. State Social Security Commission, 143 S.W. (2d) 165;Clay v. State Social Security Commission, 143 S.W. (2d) 167.]

Learned and able counsel for the applicant urge that the decision of the Commission in this case should not be given the weight and effect of a jury verdict in common-law actions, since the Commission's ruling was based on the written record of a hearing before a referee.It is argued that such being the case, the Commission had no advantage over this court in considering the case, such as a trial court in an ordinary suit usually has in its opportunity to view the witnesses, observe their demeanor and appearance while testifying, etc.The fact remains that the Commission is empowered by statute to make the decision upon conflicting facts and inferences, whereas the courts are not so empowered by the new Section 16.

As to burden of proof before the Commission:

Under the statutes, application for old age assistance is filed in the county office (Sec. 12967b-14), investigation of the circumstances of the applicant is made by that office, and decision in the first instance is made by the State Administrator, or someone designated by him.If such decision is favorable, no further proceeding by the applicant is required (Sec. 12967b-15).Consequently in most cases where the applicant is clearly entitled to benefits, the applicant is enrolled without hearing, and the Commission is not required to hold a hearing on the application.If the application is denied by the administrator or his appointee, appeal to the Commission results in a hearing.The statute(Sec. 12967b-16) requires the Commission to give "notice of, and opportunity for, a fair and speedy hearing."The applicant is given the right to appear in person and by attorney, and "to introduce into the record at said hearing any and all evidence, by witnesses or otherwise, pertinent to such applicant's eligibility."It seems clear under the procedure thus provided that the burden of proof of eligibility on the hearing before the Commission is on the applicant.Her claim was investigated and rejected prior to the hearing and she is attempting by appeal to the Commission and the courts to reverse that decision of the administrator or his appointee.

As to the statutory requirements for eligibility:

Section 1 of the Federal Social Security Act authorizes appropriations to enable each state "to furnish financial assistance as far as practicable under the conditions in such state, to aged needy individuals," such sums to be used to make payments to states having properly approved state plans for old-age assistance.In Moore v. State Social Security Commission(Mo. App.), 122 S.W. (2d) 391, this court commented that in its opinion a person could qualify as an "aged needy individual" within the meaning of the Federal statutes in spite of gratuitous support being received from a daughter.This court ruled, however, that rights in Missouri were determined by the State law, not the Federal statute, and that under old section 12 such gratuitous assistance was not "income or other resources," or "means of support," and did not disqualify the applicant.The comments of Mr. Witte, Executive Director of the Committee on Economic Security before the senate committee, quoted in that opinion, demonstrate that at least he did not feel that the proposed Federal legislation, by the words "aged needy individuals," was...