Clark v. Astrue
Decision Date | 19 March 2010 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 08-5801-cv. |
Parties | Elaine CLARK, Raymond Giangrasso, Tony Gonzales, Johnny L. Heatherman, Monell White, individually, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Commissioner Michael J. ASTRUE, of the Social Security Administration, in his official capacity, Social Security Administration, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Steven E. Obus, Bettina B. Plevan, Brian S. Rauch, Russel L. Hirschhorn, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, N.Y.; Gerald A. McIntyre, National Senior Citizens Law Center, Los Angeles, CA; Jennifer J. Parish, Urban Justice Center, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John E. Gura, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney (David S. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), for Lev L. Dassin, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
Catherine M. Callery, Lynda J. Fisher, Louise M. Tarantino, Empire Justice Center, Rochester, N.Y.; Linda Landry, Disability Law Center Inc., Boston, MA, for Amici Curiae Empire Justice, et al., in support of Plaintiff-Appellants.
Before: NEWMAN, CALABRESI, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs below appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stein J.) granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The District Court's decision is VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Elaine Clark, Raymond Giangrasso, Tony Gonzales, Johnny L. Heatherman, and Monell White brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stein, J.) against Defendants-Appellees the Social Security Administration and its Commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, alleging that the Administration has suspended Old-Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits in a manner inconsistent with the authorizing statute. The District Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Title XVI and Title II of the Social Security Act provide benefits for qualifying individuals. 42 U.S.C. §§ 402, 1382. Title XVI's Social Security Income (SSI) program provides benefits to "each aged, blind, or disabled individual who does not have an eligible spouse" and whose income and resources fall below a certain level. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(a). Title II's Old-Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program provides benefits to insured individuals, independent of need, who are, among other things, at least 62 years of age. 42 U.S.C. § 402.
Congress has passed two provisions authorizing the Social Security Administration to suspend the benefits of an individual who is violating the terms of her probation or parole (hereinafter "suspension provisions"). As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-193, § 202, 110 Stat. 2105, 2185-86, Congress passed the SSI program's suspension provision, which states:
42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(A) (emphasis added). Congress passed a similar provision for the OASDI program in the Social Security Protection Act of 2004, Pub.L. No. 108-203, § 203, 118 Stat. 493, 509:
42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A) (emphasis added).
In 2004, Congress also provided for circumstances in which suspended benefits should be reinstated (hereinafter "good-cause provisions"). See Social Security Protection Act of 2004, Pub.L. 108-203, § 203, 118 Stat. at 509. The good-cause provision as it applies to the OASDI's suspension provision reads as follows:
42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(B)(iii) (emphasis added). The SSI program's good-cause provision is to the same effect:
42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(B) (emphasis added).
On June 30, 2000, the Social Security Administration enacted a regulation implementing the 1996 suspension provision. 65 Fed.Reg. 40,493-94. That regulation states:
20 C.F.R. § 416.1339(b). The Administration has not adopted an analogous implementing regulation for the OASDI suspension provision.
The Social Security Administration further construed Congress's suspension provisions in its sub-regulatory Program Operations Manual System (POMS). The POMS states that SSI benefits should be suspended under the following circumstances:
The month in which a warrant, a court order or decision, or an order or decision by an appropriate agency in the United States (e.g. parole board) is issued which finds that the individual is wanted in connection with a crime that is a felony or for attempting to commit a crime that is a felony or is violating a condition of his or her probation or parole.
POMS § SI 00530.010(A). Suspended SSI benefits may be reinstated "effective with the first month throughout which the individual does not have an active warrant pending for a ... violation of a condition of his or her parole or probation." Id. at §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuckson v. United States, 11–CF–552.
... ... -sense standard that does not demand any showing that such a belief [that contraband will be found] be correct or more likely true than false); Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 140, 147 (2d Cir.2010) ([P]robable cause is a lower standard than preponderance of the evidence.) (internal quotation marks ... ...
-
Harrington v. Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc.
... ... See id. at 265-66, 70 S.Ct. 26; Krenger v. Penn. R.R. Co., 174 F.2d 556, 559 (2d Cir.1949) (Op. of Clark, J.). It follows that the Agreement contravenes FELA section 5 and is void ... The majority fails to recognize this point when it ... ...
-
Griffith v. Steiner Williamsburg Llc
... ... To ascertain Congress's intent, we begin with the statutory text because if its language is unambiguous, no further inquiry is necessary. Clark v. Astrue, 602 F.3d 140, 147 (2d Cir.2010); see also, e.g., Dobrova v. Holder, 607 F.3d 297, 301 (2d Cir.2010) ( [S]tatutory analysis necessarily ... ...
-
Jill G. v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
... ... substantial evidence and whether the correct legal standards ... were applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); ... Cichocki v. Astrue, 729 F.3d 172, 177 (2d Cir ... 2013). The Commissioner's factual findings are conclusive ... when supported by substantial evidence ... not have an eligible spouse and whose income and resources ... fall below a certain level.” Clark v. Astrue, ... 602 F.3d 140, 142 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § ... 1382(a)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Social ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...8th-04, §§ 104.1, 203.4, 312.12 Clark v. Astrue, 529 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. June 25, 2008), 9th-10, 9th-08, § 1701.12 Clark v. Astrue , 602 F.3d 140 (2nd Cir. March 19, 2010), 2d-09 Clark v. Chater , 75 F.3d 414, 417 (8th Cir. 1996), §§ 101.1, 205.2, 205.8, 205.9, 210.6, 301.3 Clark v. Comm’r ......
-
Following a Favorable Decision
...repay any previously withheld benefits or recovered overpayment. POMS GN 02613.450 D. Probation and Parole Violations In Clark v. Astrue , 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the Social Security Act provided for suspending benefits for a beneficiary w......
-
Case Index
...1017, 154 L.Ed.2d 972 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003), U.S. Supreme Court-03 § 402.6. Nonpayment of Benefits to Fleeing Felons Clark v. Astrue , 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. March 19, 2010), 2d-10 In re Otis v. Apfel , 202 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000), 8th-00 Oteze Fowlkes v. Adamec , 432 F.3d 90, 92 (......
-
Case index
...S.Ct. 1017, 154 L.Ed.2d 972 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003), U.S. Supreme Court-03 § 402.6 Nonpayment of Benefits to Fleeing Felons Clark v. Astrue , 602 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. March 19, 2010), 2d-10 In re Otis v. Apfel , 202 F.3d 1050 (8 th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000), 8 th -00 Oteze Fowlkes v. Adamec , 432 F.3d ......