Richards v. Social Security Administration
| Decision Date | 26 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 6873. |
| Citation | 76 F. Supp. 12 |
| Parties | RICHARDS v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Joseph F. Pelletier, of Salem, Mass., for plaintiff.
William T. McCarthy, U. S. Atty., and Edward D. Hassan, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Boston, Mass., for defendant.
The plaintiff brings this action to review a decision of the Social Security Administration as provided in Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 405 (g).
The plaintiff is the widow of one Melvin Richards, who died in Florida in September 1945. She filed a claim for herself and her minor daughter. The daughter's claim was allowed and the widow's was denied on the ground that she was not "living with her husband at the time of his death", within the meaning of Section 209(n) of the Act.
The plaintiff and Melvin Richards were married in Massachusetts in 1930, and lived here together as husband and wife until August 1935. On October 31, 1935, the husband pleaded guilty to a complaint charging him with desertion and nonsupport of his wife. The Court placed Richards on probation for one year, and ordered him to make payments weekly for the support and maintenance of his family. In October 1936, the term of probation was extended for one year. At or about this time Richards again deserted his wife and moved to Florida where he lived until his death. He defaulted his appearance before the District Court in Salem in 1937, and a capias was issued for his arrest. It was never served, however, and the Commonwealth made no effort to compel him to return to Massachusetts and assume his proper burden. Section 209(n) of the Act, in defining the phrase "living with", as used in Section 202(e), includes one who is receiving regular contributions from her husband towards her support or "* * * he had been ordered by any court to contribute to her support". This is a broad interpretation of the phrase "living together" as used in the Act, and to accomplish the intent of Congress should be broadly construed. The Referee took the position that, since the Massachusetts District Court was limited in its support order to a term not exceeding six years, see section 5 of Chapter 273 of the Massachusetts General Laws (Ter.Ed.), the Congressional interpretation of "living together" should be construed to mean an order which had not expired, either by virtue of its own time limitation or for any other reason. Such an interpretation would put the burden on some one, either the Court or one of the parties litigant, to see that the order was kept alive until the death of the absent husband. I think that this is an unreasonable interpretation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rosewall v. Folsom
...are almost identical in wording on the point with which we are here concerned. The District Court case of Richards v. Social Security Administration, 76 F.Supp. 12, does give support to the contentions of the plaintiff herein. However, we think Richards was wrongly decided. The conclusions ......
-
TREIRES v. Folsom, Civ. 190-56.
...Relations Board, 1951, 340 U.S. 474, 490, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456." Plaintiff here relies heavily upon Richards v. Social Security Administration, D.C.Mass.1948, 76 F.Supp. 12. In that case after the marriage and separation the husband pleaded guilty to a criminal complaint charging him ......
-
Colbert v. Hobby
...counsel has indicated that she has found only one reported case involving abandonment by the wage earner. Richards v. Social Security Administration, D.C., 76 F.Supp. 12. The Kandelin case, which was affirmed in Kandelin v. Social Security Bd., 2 Cir., 136 F.2d 327, 147 A.L.R. 596, was deci......
-
Goddard v. Folsom, Civ. A. No. 54-918.
...interpretation of the Act would have considered it a court order to contribute to the plaintiff's support. Richards v. Social Security Administration, D.C.D.Mass., 76 F.Supp. 12. The matter, however, never reached that stage. Even if the entry of a default were the same thing as a finding o......