Gillens v. Colorado Dept. of Social Services, 81CA0196

Citation644 P.2d 97
Decision Date01 April 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81CA0196,81CA0196
PartiesEddie GILLENS and Robinn Love, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellant. . II
CourtCourt of Appeals of Colorado

Michael J. Steiner, Linda J. Olson, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellees.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Eva Camacho Woodard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellant.

VAN CISE, Judge.

This lawsuit was brought under § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S.1973, for judicial review of the order of defendant, the Colorado Department of Social Services (the state department), approving the action of the county department in obtaining from plaintiffs, Eddie Gillens and Robinn Love (the applicants), reimbursement of interim assistance payments made to Gillens and Love under the state's Aid to the Needy and Disabled Program (AND) pending awards of federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The district court reversed the state department. We reverse the district court.

In their district court action, the applicants proceeded without a transcript of the testimony taken at the agency hearing. Therefore, we must assume that the hearing officer's findings of fact, other than those based on exhibits in the record or based on admissions of the parties, are supported by the evidence. Furer v. Allied Steel Co., 174 Colo. 171, 483 P.2d 212 (1971); White v. Jackson, 41 Colo.App. 433, 586 P.2d 243 (1978).

From the exhibits and admissions in the record, and the hearing officer's evidentiary findings of fact, it appears that in March 1976, Love applied to the county department for state AND benefits pursuant to § 26-2-111(4), C.R.S.1973 (see 1981 Cum.Supp.). In March 1978, Gillens made a similar application. As part of the AND application procedure, both applicants signed a form entitled "Authorization of Refund of Interim Assistance." In this form, each stated that, should he later be granted SSI by the federal Social Security Administration, he would allow the county department to deduct from his initial SSI lump sum retroactive benefit payment all of the interim state AND benefits paid to him while his federal SSI claim was pending. Each applicant voluntarily signed the form, and his signature was not obtained as a result of any duress or coercion by the county department.

Both applicants were found eligible for and were paid AND benefits as interim assistance. Also, both applied for and, in 1979, were approved for and were awarded SSI benefits.

Pursuant to the authorizations, the Social Security Administration paid to the county department the first SSI payment for each. In each instance, the county department deducted therefrom the amount of state AND interim assistance which had previously been paid, and the balance was disbursed to the applicant.

The applicants objected to anything having been withheld, and appealed this to the state department. After an evidentiary hearing before a hearing officer, an order was entered in 1980 affirming the withholding.

The applicants then commenced this action for review in the district court. In 1981, that court reversed the agency decision and ordered the state department to pay Love $6,113.50 and Gillens $1,426, the amounts previously withheld from their first SSI benefit checks. Contending that the district court erred by entering these orders, the state department has appealed.

I.

On appeal, the applicants contend, and the trial court agreed, that the authorization constituted a contract and that it was breached by the department's having failed to provide them with prompt payment of the AND benefits to which they were entitled. We do not agree.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1383(g)(1) and § 26-2-206, C.R.S.1973, the state had entered into an agreement with the federal Social Security Administration which provided that the initial lump sum retroactive benefit payment for newly eligible SSI recipients, with their individual approval would be sent to the appropriate county department. This was to be done so that any AND interim assistance payments which had been advanced during the interim period in which the SSI application was being processed could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Biggs v. Lyng
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • October 1, 1986
    ...Pennsylvania case from the challenged statutory and regulatory scheme at issue in Tidwell.2 Similarly, Gillens v. Colorado Department of Social Services, 644 P.2d 97 (Colo. App.1982), construed a Colorado interim assistance program that closely parallels New York's Home Relief program. Unde......
  • Kraft v. Commissioner of Public Welfare
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • September 3, 1986
    ...from two public assistance programs for one time period. See Moore v. Colautti, supra at 362, 372; Gillens v. Colorado Dep't of Social Servs., 644 P.2d 97, 98-99 (Colo.Ct.App.1982). State interim assistance payments have been compared to a loan which a State is entitled to recoup to the ext......
  • Martinez v. COLORADO DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVS.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • October 9, 2003
    ...they had been required to sign. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, in which they argued that, under Gillens v. Colorado Department of Social Services, 644 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1982), the authorization signed by plaintiff was "not a contract and not subject to analysis as such." By agreement......

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