Nichols v. State Social Security Com'n of Missouri

• Citation: 164 S.W.2d 278,349 Mo. 1148
• Decision Date: 08 September 1942
• Docket Number: 37945
• Parties: William S. Nichols v. The State Social Security Commission of Missouri, Appellant
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

164 S.W.2d 278

349 Mo. 1148

William S. Nichols v. The State Social Security Commission of Missouri, Appellant

No. 37945

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 8, 1942

Appeal from Gasconade Circuit Court; Hon. Ranson Albert Breuer, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Roy McKittrick, Attorney General, B. Richard Creech, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmore C Crowe for appellant.

(1) The State Commission is the administrative agency empowered by the Legislature to determine the facts upon an appeal under the Social Security Law, and if its finding is supported by substantial evidence, it is binding on the circuit and appellate courts. Howlett v. State Social Security Comm., 149 S.W.2d 806; Sec. 9411, R. S. 1939; Keller v. State Social Security Comm., 137 S.W.2d 989; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 147 S.W.2d 157; Helms v. Alabama Pension Comm., 231 Ala. 183 163 So. 807; Clay v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 165; Redmon v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 165; Johns v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 167; Dunnavant v. State Social Security Comm., 150 S.W.2d 1103; Smith v State Social Security Comm., 153 S.W.2d 741; Burgfield v. State Social Security Comm., 155 S.W.2d 792; Hughes v. State Social Security Comm., 157 S.W.2d 223; Natl. Labor Relations Board v. Waterman Steamship Corp., 60 S.Ct. 493; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 59 S.Ct. 754; Federal Communication Comm. v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 60 S.Ct. 437; Railroad Comm. v. Rowans & Nichols Oil Co., 60 S.Ct. 1021; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 601, 328 Mo. 112; Beck v. Kansas City Pub. Serv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 213; DeMay v. Liberty Foundry, 37 S.W.2d 640, 327 Mo. 495. (a) In determining whether the record discloses substantial evidence to support the finding of the commission, the reviewing court must look only to the evidence which is most favorable to support such findings. Bice v. Tarlton, 35 S.W.2d 993; Hammock v. Lumber Co., 39 S.W.2d 650, 224 Mo.App. 570; Brewer v. Lime & Cement Co., 25 S.W.2d 1068; Cotter v. Coal Co., 14 S.W.2d 660, 222 Mo.App. 1138; Betz v. Columbia Tel. Co., 224 S.W.2d 224, 224 Mo.App. 1004; Wheat v. E. A. Whitney & Son, 34 S.W.2d 158; Bicker v. Gille Mfg. Co., 35 S.W.2d 662, 225 Mo.App. 989; Simmons v. Miss. River Fuel Co., 43 S.W.2d 868; Anchley v. Zerr, 155 S.W.2d 275; Hunt v. Jeffries, 156 S.W.2d 23; Lutman v. American Shoe Machine Co., 151 S.W. 701. (b) Applying the tests laid down by the aforementioned cases. The substantial evidence in this case supports the finding of the State Commission. Berkemeier v. Reller, 296 S.W. 739; State v. Gregory, 96 S.W.2d 47, 339 Mo. 133; Jenkins & Reynolds Co. v. Alpena Portland Cement Co., 147 F. 641-643; James v. Kansas City Gas Co., 625 Mo. 1054, 30 S.W.2d 118; Harden v. Ill. Cen. Railroad Co., 334 Mo. 1169, 70 S.W.2d 1075. (2) The State Commission made a finding of fact, namely, that the claimant has income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health and is not found to be in need. Sec. 9406, R. S. 1939; State ex rel. v. Haid, 51 S.W.2d 1008, 330 Mo. 1030; Probst v. St. Louis Basket Co., 52 S.W.2d 501; Shultz v. Grand Union Tea & Coffee Co., 43 S.W.2d 832; Jones v. Century Coal Co., 46 S.W.2d 196; Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. Fed. Communications Comm., 96 F.2d 554; Howlett v. State Social Security Comm., 149 S.W.2d 806; Buettner v. State Social Security Comm., 144 S.W.2d 864; Dunnavant v. State Social Security Comm., 150 S.W.2d 1103; Smith v. State Social Security Comm., 153 S.W.2d 741; Burgfield v. State Social Security Comm., 155 S.W.2d 792; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 147 S.W.2d 157; Clay v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 165; Redmon v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 167; Waring v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 225 Mo.App. 600, 39 S.W.2d 418; Doughten v. Marland Refining Co., 53 S.W.2d 236; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 601, 328 Mo. 112; Metting v. Lehr Construction Co., 225 Mo.App. 1152, 32 S.W.2d 121. (3) Under the 1939 amendments to the Social Security Law the claimant is ineligible to receive benefits. Sec. 9406, R. S. 1939; Howlett v. State Social Security Comm., 149 S.W.2d 806; Burgfield v. State Social Security Comm., 155 S.W.2d 792; Smith v. State Social Security Comm., 153 S.W.2d 741; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 147 S.W.2d 157; Buettner v. State Social Security Comm., 144 S.W.2d 864; Price v. State Social Security Comm., 232 Mo.App. 721, 121 S.W.2d 298; Moore v. State Social Security Comm., 233 Mo.App. 536, 122 S.W.2d 391; Johns v. State Social Security Comm., 143 S.W.2d 167; Dunnavant v. State Social Security Comm., 150 S.W.2d 1103; Garrison v. State Social Security Comm., 157 S.W.2d 792; Hughes v. State Social Security Comm., 157 S.W.2d 223. (4) Foreign cases construing similar social legislation have interpreted eligibility requirements according to the appellant's contention. Rasmussen v. County of Hennepin, 207 Minn. 28, 289 N.W. 773; Wood v. Wagner, 293 N.W. 188; Schneberger v. State Board of Social Welfare, 291 N.W. 859; State ex rel. Eckroth v. Borge, 69 N.D. 1, 283 N.W. 521; Adams v. Ernest, 117 P.2d 775; Soper v. Wheeler, 132 N.E. 46, 239 Mass. 327; In re Waits Estate, 7 A.2d 329, 336 Pa. 151; Sweeney v. State Board of Public Assistance, 36 F.Supp. 171; Los Angeles County v. LaFuente, 119 P.2d 772; Wilkie v. O'Connor, 25 N.Y.S. (2d) 617. (5) In the administration of the public assistance program the State Commission is vested with a broad discretion in the execution of legislative policies. 22 C. J., 130, 69-70; 10 R. C. L. 880, 27; Schneberger v. State Board of Public Welfare, 291 N.W. 859; Borreson v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 368 Ill. 425, 14 N.E.2d 485; United States v. Morgan, 307 U.S. 183; Sec. 9406, R. S. 1939; Webster's New International Dictionary; Words and Phrases (5th Series) 167; Moses v. Olson, 255 N.W. 617, 192 Minn. 173; Moore v. State Social Security Comm., 233 Mo.App. 536, 122 S.W.2d 391; Sweeney v. State Board of Public Assistance, 36 F.Supp. 171. (6) The judgment of the circuit court and the dissenting opinion of the appellate court are based on a misconception of the purpose and intent of the Social Security Law as enacted by the Legislature. Sec. 9406, R. S. 1939; Buettner v. State Social Security Comm., 144 S.W.2d 864; Dahlin v. Mo. Comm. for the Blind, 262 S.W. 420; State ex rel. Wabash Ry. Co. v. Shain, 106 S.W.2d 898, 341 Mo. 19; State ex rel. Jacobsmeyer v. Thatcher, 92 S.W.2d 640, 338 Mo. 622; Columbia Weighing Machine Co. v. Rockwell, 38 S.W.2d 508; Howlett v. State Social Security Comm., 149 S.W.2d 806; Economic Status of the Aged, Social Security Board, Social Security Bulletin (Mar. 1938), p. 5-16; Exodus, Chapter 21; Blackstone, Commentaries, 453; Federal Social Security Law, 42 U.S.C. A., sec. 301; Hearing Before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 74th Congress, 1st Session on H. R. 4120, p. 83; Report No. 628, Calendar No. 661 of the 74th U.S. Senate.

Bohling, C. Westhues and Barrett, CC., concur.

OPINION

BOHLING

This cause was certified here by the Kansas City Court of Appeals. It involves an application to the State Social Security Commission for old age assistance. Ch. 52, Art. 1, R. S. 1939. See Nichols v. State Social Security Commission (Mo. App.), 156 S.W.2d 760, where the facts are detailed. The circuit court found the award of the Commission, which denied assistance, "unreasonable, arbitrary and against the purpose and spirit of the law" and remanded the cause for further consideration. The Commission appealed. A majority of the Court of Appeals did not concur in the opinion prepared and considered the award of the Commission should be affirmed.

The Social Security Act of 1937 (Laws 1937, p. 467) granted old age assistance, in so far as material to a determination of the instant case, to an aged person not having "sufficient income or other resources to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health, and is therefore without adequate means of support" (Ibid., Sec. 12; see now Sec. 9407, R. S. 1939); and provided that "the amount of benefits . . . shall be determined with due regard to resources and necessary expenditures of the individual . . ." [Ibid., Sec. 11.] The act was construed as conferring assistance upon otherwise qualified persons although they were actually receiving "a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health" from some child or other relative. Price v. State Social Security Comm., 232 Mo.App. 721, 728, 121 S.W.2d 298, 302[1]; Moore v. State Social Security Comm., 233 Mo.App. 536, 541, 122 S.W.2d 391, 393[4]. In 1939 the Act was materially changed. Section 11, as reenacted, provided: "In determining the eligibility of an applicant . . ., it shall be the duty of the Commission to consider and take into account all facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant, including his earning capacity, income and resources, from whatever source received, and if from all the facts and circumstances the applicant is not found to be in need, assistance shall be denied. . . . Benefits shall not be payable to any person who: . . .

"(6) has earning capacity, income, or resources, whether such income or resources is received from some other person or persons, gifts or otherwise, sufficient to meet his needs for a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health." [Laws 1939, p. 739; Sec. 9406, R. S. 1939.] This resulted in denying assistance to those otherwise entitled thereto who received gratuities enabling them to live in decency and health. Howlett v. Social Security Comm., 347 Mo. 784, 793, 149 S.W.2d 806, 812[12]; Chapman v. State Social Security Comm., 235 Mo.App 698, 703, 147 S.W.2d 157,...