Conklin v. Shinpoch

• Decision Date: 18 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 52475-1,52475-1
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Bette J. CONKLIN, and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. A. N. SHINPOCH, Secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Appellant.

Page 410

107 Wn.2d 410

730 P.2d 643

Bette J. CONKLIN, and all others similarly situated, Respondents, v. A. N. SHINPOCH, Secretary of the Washington State Department

of Social and Health Services, Appellant.

No. 52475-1.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

Dec. 18, 1986.

Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., Charles Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for appellant.

Evergreen Legal Services, Janet Varon, Robin Zukoski, Seattle, for respondents.

DURHAM, Justice.

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) appeals from a trial court decision declaring that its interpretation of RCW 74.04.005 to deny benefits under the State's General Assistance--Unemployable program to a certain category of persons is unconstitutional. We reverse, holding that DSHS correctly construed the statute and that its interpretation does not violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, article 1, section 12.

The following background information on relevant public assistance programs is provided to establish a context for understanding the facts in this case.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal program providing monthly payments to aged, blind or disabled persons who are determined eligible on the basis of income and resources. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, 1381a, 1382 (1982 & Supp. II 1984). The SSI program took effect on January 1, 1974. It replaced a previous arrangement under which each In addition, the states were authorized to supplement the federal payments. 42 U.S.C. § 1382. States that chose to offer these supplementary payments were allowed either to administer distribution of the payments separately or to enter into agreements with the federal government under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services would administer distribution of the supplementary payments on their behalf. 42 U.S.C. § 1382e(a), (b). Under the latter scheme, the federal government bears the entire cost of administering the distribution of federal and state payments, and the states reimburse it for the amounts distributed as supplementary payments to individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 1382e(d). See Bouchard v. Secretary of Health and Human Serv., 583 F.Supp. 944, 947-48 (D.Mass.1984) for further description of this program.

                state had administered its own program and had determined the level of need and benefits due to applicants.  [730 P.2d 645]  The SSI program was enacted, in part, to remedy variations in states' eligibility requirements.   It established a federal benefit payment level intended to provide a nationally uniform minimum benefit
                

Our state chose to offer the supplementary payments and entered into an agreement with the federal government under which it would perform the administrative functions on the State's behalf. RCW 74.04.600-.630. Pursuant to federal regulations, the State designated several categories according to which the level of supplementary payments would vary. WAC 388-59-040. See also 20 C.F.R. § 416.2030(a)(2) (1986). One of these categories is a couple consisting of a person eligible for SSI and an "ineligible spouse". An "ineligible spouse" is one who is either not aged, blind or disabled, or although aged, blind or disabled has not applied for SSI. WAC 388-59-010(13).

A couple consisting of an SSI beneficiary and an SSI-ineligible spouse receives a federally-funded benefit plus a state-funded supplement. See WAC 388-29-295. Medical coverage is not available to SSI-ineligible spouses through this program. SSI-ineligible spouses are only eligible for The General Assistance--Unemployable (GA-U) program is a separate, state-funded public assistance program. RCW 74.04.005(6). Under this program, aid is provided to persons "in need" who come within certain categories. The category relevant to the present case includes those who are not eligible to receive "federal aid assistance" other than food stamps and medical assistance, and are incapacitated from gainful employment by reason of bodily or mental infirmity that will likely continue for a minimum of 60 days. RCW 74.04.005(6)(a)(i) and (ii)(B). The Legislature has further stated: "General assistance shall be provided only to persons who are not members of assistance units receiving federal aid assistance", with certain exceptions, and who "will accept available services which can reasonably be expected to enable the person to work or reduce the need for assistance unless there is good cause to refuse." RCW 74.04.005(6)(c). State-funded medical care services are also available to recipients of general assistance in accordance with certain medical eligibility requirements. RCW 74.09.035.

                medical assistance for "acute and emergent" medical conditions, under the State's limited casualty program of medical care for the medically indigent, designed to meet health care needs of persons not receiving cash assistance or eligible for any other medical program.   WAC 388-100
                

The present action arose out of a DSHS decision terminating the named respondent, Bette J. Conklin, from further receipt of benefits under the GA-U program. Mrs. Conklin had been receiving GA-U benefits since December 1983. On January 4, 1985, DSHS notified her that it was terminating these benefits because she was "receiving SSI supplemental payments as an ineligible spouse." At the time, Mrs. Conklin's husband, an SSI beneficiary, received a monthly check for $515.40 which included an SSI benefit and a state-funded supplemental payment of $162.10 due to Mrs. Conklin's status as an SSI-ineligible spouse. Essentially, DSHS terminated Mrs. Conklin's GA-U benefits after discovering that her prior receipt of such benefits had A hearing on the termination of Mrs. Conklin's GA-U benefits was held before an administrative law judge. The judge rendered an initial decision that her GA-U benefits should not have been terminated. A review judge granted DSHS's petition for review and reversed the initial decision, thus finding Mrs. Conklin ineligible for GA-U benefits.

                not [730 P.2d 646] conformed with its established policy.   According to DSHS, SSI-ineligible spouses of SSI beneficiaries receive federal aid assistance, in effect, through the supplement to SSI, and are members of assistance units receiving federal aid assistance.   Therefore, they are excluded from GA-U benefits pursuant to RCW 74.04.005(6)
                

Mrs. Conklin filed a petition for judicial review and a complaint for declaratory, injunctive and retroactive relief in Thurston County Superior Court. She claimed, among other things, that the interpretation of RCW 74.04.005 to deny GA-U benefits to all SSI-ineligible spouses of SSI recipients violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution, article 1, section 12. The parties stipulated to entry of an order certifying the case as a class action. The court ordered that the suit be maintained as a class action

on behalf of all persons who, on or after July 14, 1985, apply for or receive GAU benefits, or have pending administrative or judicial appeals of denials or terminations, who are or will be married to SSI recipients receiving ineligible spouse payments from the State of Washington.

Mrs. Conklin was authorized to proceed as representative of the class. ¹

The trial court concluded that DSHS's interpretation of DSHS appealed to the Court of Appeals and this court accepted certification of the case. Enforcement of the trial court's order was stayed.

                RCW 74.04.005 violated the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution.   It adopted a different construction of the statute which would prohibit DSHS from denying or terminating GA-U benefits on the grounds of SSI-ineligible spouse status.   Under this interpretation, SSI-ineligible spouses of SSI recipients would not be considered part of the "assistance unit" of their spouses and, thus, would not be members of assistance units receiving federal aid assistance.   The trial court enjoined DSHS from further denying or terminating GA-U benefits on the basis of SSI-ineligible spouse status, ordered it to redetermine class members' eligibility for GA-U benefits and award such benefits to eligible individuals retroactively, and directed it to revise and publish regulations, instructions and notices to implement the order
                

This case involves two main issues. First, does RCW 74.04.005 preclude SSI-ineligible spouses from receiving GA-U benefits? Second, if RCW 74.04.005 is construed to exclude SSI-ineligible spouses from GA-U benefits, does this violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and the privileges and immunities clause of Const. art. 1, § 12?

The first issue is a matter of statutory construction. RCW 74.04.005(6)(c) provides: "General assistance shall be provided only to persons who are not members of assistance units receiving federal aid assistance ..." RCW 74.04.005(5) defines "federal aid assistance" as follows:

The specific categories of assistance for which provision is made in any federal law existing or hereafter passed by which payments are made from the federal government to the state in aid or in respect to payment by the state for public assistance rendered to any category of needy persons for which provision for federal funds or aid may from time to time be made, or a federally administered needs-based program.

According to WAC 388-29-001, " 'Assistance unit' means a person or members of a family eligible to be included in a single categorical grant." Further, WAC 388-29-020(1) states:

The law specifies who is eligible to receive assistance in his or her own right. The law does not always specify, except in general terms, which other persons may be included in...