Hooks v. State Social Security Commission
| Decision Date | 04 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 26156.,26156. |
| Citation | 165 S.W.2d 267 |
| Parties | HOOKS v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robert L. Aronson, Judge.
"Not to be reported in State Reports."
Proceeding by Saul Hooks, claimant, against the State Social Security Commission of Missouri on application for old age assistance. From a judgment of the circuit court reversing commission's award denying old age assistance to claimant, and remanding the award to commission for redetermination, the commission appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and B. Richards Creech, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Frank S. Bledsoe, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the State Social Security Commission of Missouri from a judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, rendered December 2, 1941, wherein an award of the Commission, which denied old age assistance to Saul Hooks, respondent, was reversed and the cause remanded to the Commission for redetermination. The finding and award of the Commission was as follows:
Appellant contends that, there being substantial evidence supporting the finding and award of the Commission, the judgment of the circuit court should be reversed and the cause remanded to that court with instructions to affirm the award of the Commission.
Appellant in its brief correctly states most of the principles of law which must govern the determination of this kind of a case. Among such principles are the following: That, in determining whether the record discloses substantial evidence supporting the finding of the commission, the appellate court must look only to the evidence which is most favorable to support such finding; that, if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the finding and award of the commission, it is not within the province of the circuit court or this court to disturb such finding and award. However, in addition to the foregoing, there is another rule of law applicable to such a case as this, which must not be overlooked. As stated by our Supreme Court, it is as follows: "But if the ultimate decision of the commission is not based upon substantial evidence, the finding must be characterized as arbitrary and unreasonable and the determination reversed." Howlett v. Social Security Commission, 347 Mo. 784, 789, 149 S.W.2d 806, 810.
Appellant asserts that, under the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Law, particularly what is now Section 9406, R.S. Mo.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 9406, respondent is ineligible to receive old age assistance benefits, because, as appellant argues, the evidence shows that he has income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health, and is not found to be in need.
The applicable principles of law being well settled, it is not necessary to discuss the large number of cases cited by appellant in support of its contentions. The real point of dispute is whether or not the facts in evidence show respondent, who is sixty-nine years of age and possessed of the necessary qualifications as to residence, is eligible for old age assistance. The controversy arises in connection with the attempt of the respective parties to apply the law to the facts of this case.
Respondent contends that the evidence shows as a matter of law that he was not receiving support and maintenance "compatible with decency and health"; and that there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting the award of the Commission. The circuit court found that respondent had a fair hearing but that the findings and award of the commission were not based upon substantial evidence, and that in contemplation of law, under the decision of our Supreme Court in Howlett v. Social Security Commission, supra, such findings and award were unreasonable and arbitrary.
The issues presented in this court, therefore, require a review of the evidence.
The evidence shows that, at the time of the hearing before the commission, respondent was sixty-nine years of age; that he and his wife, aged sixty-five, live with their son, Richard Hooks, in a four-room rented house at 2102a O'Fallon Street in the City of St. Louis; that Glendora Moody, who, according to respondent's testimony, is the common law wife of Richard Hooks, also lived at the same place. Richard Hooks testified that Glendora Moody was merely a roomer and paid $2 a week for her room. It is not disputed that respondent owns no property and has had no income of his own since he was taken off W P A work four years ago because of physical disabilities.
Respondent testified that his son Richard had been taking care of all of the household expenses, including rent, light, water, fuel and groceries. Respondent further testified that he and his wife ate their meals after Richard and Glendora got through, and that "there ain't much left." Richard Hooks stated that they all ate at the same table. Respondent further testified that he did not have sufficient clothing, and that his son Richard had not bought him any clothes during the past year; that he had disagreements with both Richard and Glendora; that Richard told him to leave the house, and that Glendora cursed and struck him. When asked what support he got from his son, respondent testified:
The witness further testified that he did not own any real estate, did not have any money in the bank, did not have any stocks or bonds, and had no property of any kind. With respect to clothing, the witness testified:
It further appears from respondent's testimony that the trousers he had on do not fit him; that he cannot fasten them at the top; that he was not the owner of a top shirt but had a frayed sweater on over his patched undershirt; that he had no coat; that he had but one pair of shoes with holes in them; that he had no socks to wear with his shoes; that the last socks he had were worn out two months before; that the only underwear he had was that which he had on and which had been all patched by his wife. Respondent was asked:
"Mr. Hooks, do you go to church?" and answered: "Well, I am very fond of going whenever I can get out but I'm in no shape to go.
Richard Hooks, respondent's son, called as a witness, testified on behalf of the commission as follows:
The witness further testified that he earned $22 per week working for the St. Louis and Southwestern Railroad Company; that the monthly household expenses which he pays are as follows: Rent $16, groceries $36 to $40, lights $1.20, fuel $10, and payments for his daughter's keep in Kansas City, Missouri, $14—totaling from $76 to $80 a month. The witness further testified:
The witness further testified:
The witness further testified that he was back in his rent and that he was paying $2 every month on the back rent.
Mrs. Ella Hooks, wife of respondent, testified that she was suffering from neuritis; that she had been under a doctor's care a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norman v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...257, 259(3); Linton v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 252 S.W.2d 841, 843(4); Hooks v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 267, 268(1)], and we may not say that the Director's decision was arbitrary and unreasonable merely because we might have rea......
-
Campbell v. State Social Sec. Com'n
...191 S.W.2d 1015 239 Mo.App. 380 Anna B. Campbell, v. State Social Security Commission Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas CityNovember 5, 1945 ... ... as arbitrary and unreasonable and determination reversed ... Hooks v. State Social Security Commission, 165 ... S.W.2d 267; Howlett v. State Social Security ... ...
-
Davis v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...to the finding of the Director. Chapman v. State Social Security Commission, 235 Mo.App. 698, 147 S.W.2d 157; Hooks v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 267; Brattin v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 194 S.W.2d 536; Howlett v. State Social Security Commission......
-
Thornsberry v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 7471
...and health.' * * * The minimum requirements would be sufficient shelter, food, clothing and medical attention. Hooks v. State Social Security Comm., Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 267. * * '* * * The undisputed facts should take precedence over the arbitrary figures in the budget prepared by the case ......