Grant v. Weinberger
| Decision Date | 18 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1115.,73-1115. |
| Citation | 482 F.2d 1290 |
| Parties | Joe W. GRANT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casper W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Stanton R. Koppel, Dept. of Justice, for defendant-appellant; Harlington Wood, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., John P. Milanowski, U. S. Atty., Kathryn H. Baldwin, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief.
Edward M. Welch, Jr., Muskegon, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee; McCroskey, Libner, Van Leuven, Kortering, Cochrane & Brock, by Edward M. Welch, Jr., Muskegon, Mich., on brief.
Before WEICK, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.
Appellant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, appeals from the grant of full Social Security disability benefits by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division.
This case is an extension of the debate previously joined in Lofty v. Richardson, 440 F.2d 1144 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 985, 92 S.Ct. 443, 30 L. Ed.2d 369 (1971), and ultimately decided in Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U.S. 78, 92 S.Ct. 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 231 (1971). These cases concerned a due process attack upon 42 U.S.C. § 424a (1970), wherein Congress provided an offset against Social Security disability payments of the amount of any payments for disability then being made under a state workmen's compensation plan.
In the instant case plaintiff Grant suffered the amputation of his arm in the course of his employment at the Lakey Foundry Corporation. The employer paid the sums provided by the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act (see M.S.A. 17.237 (361) (Cum.Supp. 1972)), M.C.L.A. § 418.361. This provision provides in part that the "disability . . . shall be deemed to continue for the period specified. . . ." ". . . arms, 269 weeks . . ." (M.S.A. 17.237(361) (i) (Cum.Supp.1972)).
The administrative decision and that of the Hearing Examiner and the appeals council was that the payments provided for the loss of the arm must be offset against Social Security disability payments. On petition to review that decision before the District Judge, the Judge recognized that Richardson v. Belcher, supra, and Lofty v. Richardson, supra, were controlling on the constitutional issue pertaining to due process, but held that Michigan case law, particularly Jones v. Cutler Oil Co., 356 Mich. 487, 97 N.W.2d 74 (1959), demonstrated that specific loss benefits under the Michigan Workmen's Compensation statute are not dependent upon actual (as opposed to presumed) disability, but really amount to arbitrarily determined amounts paid for the loss of a specific portion of the body. See Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co., 378 Mich. 689, 148 N.W.2d 767 (1967).
The decision of this court in Lofty, supra, and that of the Supreme Court in Richardson, supra, apply an arguably harsh result because it seemed obvious to the courts concerned that Congress intended the offset and that its legislative decision was well within its legislative powers. In this case the harshness of the Congressional enactment is even further illustrated. The loss is permanent and in the instance of this totally disabled plaintiff, it will not result in any benefit at all in excess of what he would have received (without Workmen's Compensation) from Social Security total disability benefits alone.
The purpose of the offset amendment, as well as its method of operation, seems plain to us from the face of the statute:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Olson ex rel. Estate of Olson v. Apfel
...state law, are "on account of ... total or partial disability." Accord Black v. Schweiker, 670 F.2d 108 (9th Cir.1982); Grant v. Weinberger, 482 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir.1973). II. A Substitute for Periodic Having decided that North Dakota's permanent impairment awards are payments on account of ......
-
Lemire v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
...the permanent loss payments compensated not only for the claimant's loss, but also for the ensuing disability. See Grant v. Weinberger, 482 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir.1973); Carnevali v. Heckler, 616 F.Supp. 1500 (D.Pa. 1985). In Carnevali, the court noted that under Pennsylvania Workers' Compensat......
-
Davidson v. Sullivan, No. 90-2190
...the question was one of federal law. Munsinger v. Schweiker, 709 F.2d 1212, 1217 (8th Cir.1983). The Sixth Circuit in Grant v. Weinberger, 482 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir.1973), considering, as do we, whether state benefits paid simply on account of the loss are offsettable under § 424a, appeared to......
-
Olson ex rel. Olson v. Colvin
...than wage-loss disability benefits. See Olson, for Estate of Olson v. Apfel, 170 F.3d 820, 822–25 (8th Cir.1999) ; Grant v. Weinberger, 482 F.2d 1290, 1292 (6th Cir.1973). However, the Ninth Circuit did not cite these cases or articulate this rationale in Hodge. Instead, as discussed above,......