Doolin v. State Social Sec. Com'n
| Decision Date | 30 April 1945 |
| Citation | 187 S.W.2d 467,239 Mo.App. 34 |
| Parties | William Doolen v. State Social Security Commission of Missouri |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Grundy County; Hon. V. C. Rose, Judge.
Reversed.
J E. Taylor and B. Richards Creech for appellant.
(1) The court erred in its judgment in finding that the claimant is in need within the meaning of subsection 6, Section 9406, R S. Mo., 1939. Section 9406, R. S. Mo., 1939; Kelley v State Social Security Commission, 161 S.W.2d 661, l. c. 662, par. 1; 236 Mo.App. 1058. (2) The trial court erred in finding that the claimant was not being maintained compatible with decency and health as is defined in subsection 6, Section 9406, supra. Section 9406, supra; Section 9411, R. S. Mo., 1939; David E. Hughes v. State Social Security Comm., 157 S.W.2d 223, l. c. 224; Howlett v. State Social Security Comm., 149 S.W.2d 806; 347 Mo. 784; Minnie Dunnavant v. State Social Security Comm., 150 S.W.2d 1103, l. c. 1106; Smith v. State Social Security Comm., 153 S.W.2d 741; Mary Garrison v. State Social Security Comm., 157 S.W.2d 792, par. 3. (3) The burden of proving a right to benefits under the Social Security Act rests upon the claimant. Section 9406, supra; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 147 S.W.2d 157, l. c. 159, par. 4; 235 Mo.App. 698; Nichols v. State Social Security Comm., 164 S.W.2d 278, l. c. 281; 349 Mo. 1148 trans. 156 S.W.2d 760; Stockman v. State Social Security Comm. (Mo. App.), 163 S.W.2d 127.
Rex H. Moore for respondent.
(1) Medical attention, medicine and drugs are necessary for the aged and sick to maintain themselves compatible with decency and health within the meaning of Sec. 9406, R. S. Mo., 1939. Gaeckler v. State Social Security Commission, 236 Mo.App. 541, 155 S.W.2d 544; Hughes v. Social Security Commission, 157 S.W.2d 223; Smith v. Social Security Commission, 153 S.W.2d 741. (2) Finding of social security commission is arbitrary and unreasonable when there is no evidence in the record upon which to base such finding. Howlett v. Social Security Commission, 347 Mo. 784, 149 S.W.2d 806; Gaeckler v. Social Security Commission, 236 Mo.App. 541, 155 S.W.2d 544.
Respondent had been removed from the old age assistance rolls and appealed to the State Social Security Commission. After a hearing before the Commission, it made a finding and award "(1) That claimant resides in the home of relatives with whom he has lived as a member of the family for several years; (2) That the income in this home is sufficient to meet the necessary family expenses; (3) That claimant has income, resources, support and maintenance, which he receives in the form of gratuities from such relatives, sufficient to meet his needs for a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health and is not found to be in need." Whereupon, the Commission denied the application. Appeal was thereafter taken by the respondent to the Circuit Court of Grundy County.
Upon said appeal to the Circuit Court, that court found The court thereupon ordered and adjudged that the cause be remanded to the State Social Security Commission for redetermination of the issues.
The testimony of the applicant (respondent) before the Commission was, substantially, that he was, at the time of the hearing, 85 years old, and single; that he had a son in England in the army, but who was not making the applicant any allotment; that the applicant had no property of his own; that he lived part of the time with his daughter and her family, and at other times with his brother and with his brother-in-law, and that he also had two sisters; that occasionally he had had a doctor to attend him, but the doctor was now gone; that he now had no doctor; that he had a drug bill; that one-half of his last pension check of $ 13.00 had been used to pay doctor and drug expenses; that when he lives with his daughter and her husband they furnish him food and a place to stay, and that when he stays with his other relatives they provide him with board and room. He stated that his said son-in-law, Mr. Kelso, operates an oil wagon; that applicant had lived with the Kelsos up to a few days prior to the hearing and was at the time living with respondent's brother; that he probably lived with his daughter and her husband one-third of the time, and with the rest of the relatives the balance of the time. He testified that the daughter did not buy him clothing, nor did anybody buy clothing for him except himself; that he had not been able to work for a number of years. The following was a part of his testimony:
According to the testimony of a neighbor, respondent lived with his said son-in-law part of the time and with his brother and brother-in-law at other times. He estimated that respondent lived most of the time with his daughter and son-in-law.
The brother of the respondent testified that respondent lived more of the time with his daughter and son-in-law than with the other relatives, and made that home a sort of headquarters; that he stayed with the witness part of the time and often comes for two or three days at a time; while living with the witness, the witness furnishes him with food, but has not furnished him clothing. Witness was asked if he knew that the respondent's relatives had been supporting respondent for the past few years and answered: "Yes, I suppose so." He was asked if the respondent had any income other than his old age assistance check and testified that he did not. The following question was asked the witness:
The records of the Commission were offered as to the home and family of respondent's daughter and son-in-law (the Kelsos), where he had...
To continue reading
Request your trial