Perkins v. State Social Security Commission, 26113.

• Decision Date: 07 July 1942
• Docket Number: No. 26113.,26113.
• Citation: 164 S.W.2d 129
• Parties: PERKINS v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

164 S.W.2d 129

PERKINS v. STATE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION OF MISSOURI.

No. 26113.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 7, 1942.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; William L. Mason, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Proceeding under the social security statute by Ophelia Perkins against the State Social Security Commission of Missouri for old age assistance under the statute. Benefits granted to the claimant were withdrawn by the state administrator, and the claimant appealed to the state commission. The commission denied benefits, and the claimant appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court reversed the commission's decision, and the commission appeals.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and cause remanded to the circuit court, with directions.

Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and B. Richards Creech, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

No attorney for respondent.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is a proceeding under the provisions of our Social Security Statute, section 9396 et seq., R.S.1939, Mo.R.S.A. § 9396 et seq. At some time not shown by the record the claimant, Ophelia Perkins, was granted old age assistance under the provisions of the statute. Afterwards, upon reconsideration and further investigation, the benefits granted her were withdrawn by the state administrator. Whereupon, plaintiff appealed to the state commission. The reason for the withdrawal of the benefits, as stated in claimant's application for appeal to the state commission, was: "No need for old age assistance established by applicant; disposal of property presumably to make claimant eligible for old age assistance; inability to establish eligibility under property clause of state law." On December 12, 1940, a hearing was had before the state commission, and, on January 8, 1941, the commission found that the claimant had income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health, and was not in need, and therefore denied old age assistance.

The circuit court, on appeal, found that the decision of the state commission that the claimant had income, resources, support and maintenance to provide a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health, and was not in need, was unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore reversed the decision of the commission and remanded the cause to the commission for a redetermination of the issues.

Section 9406 of the Social Security Statute, Mo.R.S.A. provides as follows:

"In determining the eligibility of an applicant for public assistance under this law, 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. The amount of benefits when added to all other income, resources, support and maintenance shall provide such persons with reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health. 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."

The record shows that the claimant, Ophelia Perkins, was eighty-five years old at the time of the hearing before the commission. She resided at 4519 Washington Avenue, in St. Louis. She had resided there for many years and operated the building as a rooming house. She had a life estate in the property until it was sold for taxes. She testified that she did not own a dollar's worth of property except the little furniture there in the house, but that the furniture was mortgaged to her niece, Mrs. Vaughn; that the rooming house was a three-story building, having ten rooms; that the property was sold for taxes about three years prior to the hearing before the commission; that she understood that Mrs. Vaughn and Mr. Merrell had title to the property; that she told them to take over the place, and that they took it over to give her a home; that they told her they would give her a home, and she let them take it; that ever since that time she had been living there and her niece had been taking care of her, had even paid for a nurse; that the place cost when it was built $11,500, but that when they bought it they wanted to pay cash for it and bought it for $7,000; that, while she was receiving old age assistance, she used the assistance to pay expenses of the house; that she tried to hold the place until it was sold for taxes; that after the place was sold Mr. Merrell took the money for her board, and that she got only enough to buy her medicine with; that she signed the checks over to him; that besides herself, Mr. Merrell resided in the building; that he was a big insurance man and was out on the road; that he took care of the household expenses, paid everything; that her niece and nephew, Mr. and Mrs. Vaughn, took care of her; that Mr. Merrell furnished her food; that...