Doughty v. State Dept. of Public Welfare

Decision Date03 March 1954
Docket NumberNo. 29101,29101
Citation233 Ind. 213,117 N.E.2d 651
PartiesDOUGHTY v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE et al.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Lawrence Booram and Grace B. De Armond, Anderson, for appellant.

William L. Peck, Anderson, Oscar C. Crawford, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellees brought this action to recover from appellant the sum of $2,312.20 received by him as old age assistance and medical benefits under the provisions of ch. 12 of the Public Welfare Act. 1

The complaint alleges that defendant (appellant) was a recipient of old age and medical assistance from the State and Madison County Welfare departments from May 1, 1949 to April, 1953; that the last payment of assistance, in the amount of $45.50, was made in April, 1953; that appellant signed and executed an agreement to reimburse the county and state as provided in § 52-1213, Burns' 1951 Replacement; that on March 24, 1953 appellant, by the settlement of a claim for certain services rendered by him to the decedent of an estate then pending in the Madison Circuit Court, was allowed the sum of $6,000; and that plaintiffs 'have reasons to believe' that if said money is paid to defendant (appellant) it will be 'dissapated ans said Plaintiffs herein will be unable to compel reimbursement of the funds expended by them.'

The prayer was for the attachment or impoundment of $2,312.20 of the allowance, and an order requiring defendant (appellant) to reimburse and repay plaintiffs the total sum received by defendant as old age assistance and medical care.

To this complaint defendant filed his demurrer for want of facts sufficient to state a cause of action.

Upon motion of plaintiffs the court impounded the sum of $2,312.20 of appellant's said allowance and ordered the clerk to pay over to him the balance of $3,687.80. The demurrer was overruled. Defendant refused to plead further, and judgment was rendered on the demurrer and the clerk of the court ordered to release to plaintiffs (appellees) the impounded sum of $2,312.20.

The overruling of appellant's demurrer is the sole error assigned. This presents the question--Can the Welfare Department enforce recovery, during the lifetime of the recipient, of benefits paid--in the absence of fraud, the payment of any excess assistance, or the necessity to protect public interest, § 52-1215, Burns' 1951 Replacement--in the event he comes into possession of any property or income in excess of the amount stated in his application?

No fraud, excess payments, or any necessity to better protect public interest is alleged in the complaint. Neither are facts alleged from which any of these may be inferred. Hence, appellees' complaint does not state a cause of action under those sections of the act 2 which provide for the recovery of assistance payments under such circumstances.

The Department of Public Welfare is created by statute and has only such powers as are specifically granted, including those necessary and incidental to their enforcement. It is necessary then to examine the statute creating the Department of Public Welfare to ascertain its power to bring the action herein.

In construing a statute the court must consider the whole act and, if possible, effect must be given to every word and clause therein. City of East Chicago v. State ex rel. Pitzer, 1949, 227 Ind. 241, 84 N.E.2d 588; Olszewski v. Stodola, 1948, 226 Ind. 639, 82 N.E.2d 256; Dowd v. Johnston, 1943, 221 Ind. 398, 47 N.E.2d 976.

Appellees are here attempting to enforce, during the lifetime of recipient, the statutory welfare lien against personal property to recover old age and medical benefits paid such recipient prior to his coming into possession of such property.

Acts 1947, ch. 144, § 4, p. 450, § 52-1215, Burns' 1951 Replacement, supra, prescribes the procedure for compelling the recipient to repay assistance benefits, and is as follows:

'(a) If at any time during the continuance of assistance to any aged person, the recipient thereof becomes possessed of any property or income in excess of the amount stated in the application provided for in Section 35 [ § 52-1204] of this act, it shall be the duty of the recipient to notify the county department immediately of the receipt or possession of such property or income and the county department may, after investigation, either cancel the assistance or alter the amount thereof in accordance with the circumstances. Any excess assistance paid shall be recoverable by the county as a debt due to the state and the county in proportion to the amount of the assistance paid by each, respectively; (b) If during the life or on the death of any aged person receiving assistance, it is found that the recipient was possessed of income or property in excess of the amount reported, and if it be shown that such assistance was obtained fraudulently, the total amount of the assistance plus a penalty of twenty per cent may be recovered by the state and county departments as a preferred claim from the estate of the recipient or in an action brought against the recipient while living.'

It is clear from the provisions of this section that the department may enforce the lien against a recipient who comes into possession of property or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 49T05-9007-TA-00038
    • United States
    • Tax Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1992
    ...effect, if possible, to each word and clause, Guinn v. Light (1990), Ind., 558 N.E.2d 821, 823 (citing Doughty v. State Dep't of Public Welfare (1954), 233 Ind. 213, 117 N.E.2d 651), and statutes applying to the same subject matter must be construed in harmony with one another. Caylor-Nicke......
  • Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 49T05-8912-TA-00070
    • United States
    • Tax Court of Indiana
    • August 19, 1992
    ...effect, if possible, to every word and clause. Guinn v. Light (1990), Ind., 558 N.E.2d 821, 823 (citing Doughty v. State Dep't of Pub. Welfare (1954), 233 Ind. 213, 117 N.E.2d 651). Caylor-Nickel Clinic, 569 N.E.2d at 768. A construction of the cash discount exclusion that would include all......
  • Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, CAYLOR-NICKEL
    • United States
    • Tax Court of Indiana
    • April 4, 1991
    ...effect, if possible, to every word and clause. Guinn v. Light (1990), Ind., 558 N.E.2d 821, 823 (citing Doughty v. State Dep't of Pub. Welfare (1954), 233 Ind. 213, 117 N.E.2d 651). All four subsections of IC 6-2.1-3-24.5 address the same subject matter, the small business corporation exemp......
  • Marhoefer Packing Co., Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 2--1072A88
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 13, 1973
    ...must be given to every word and clause of the Act. Combs v. Cook (1958), 238 Ind. 392, 151 N.E.2d 144; Doughty v. State Dept. of Public Welfare (1953), 233 Ind. 213, 117 N.E.2d 651. Since we do not accept Marhoefer's dichotomous approach, the only way in which the statute can be given meani......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT