Thornsberry v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
Decision Date | 12 November 1956 |
Docket Number | No. 45416,45416 |
Citation | 295 S.W.2d 372,365 Mo. 1217 |
Parties | Flora B. THORNSBERRY, Respondent, v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Appellant. . Banc |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Harold L. Volkmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Claude T. Wood, Richland, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Camden County reversing and remanding for redetermination the order of the Director of the Department of Public Health and Welfare (hereinafter called Director) removing Flora B. Thornsberry (hereinafter called claimant) from old age assistance rolls. The Springfield Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to affirm the Director's order, two of the judges concurring only in the result and stating that they believed some of the findings were arbitrary and unreasonable. Thornsberry v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, 285 S.W.2d 77. The case was transferred here on application of claimant.
Claimant had been on the rolls since 1938, receiving $44 per month, and was removed February 8, 1954. Claimant was 85, crippled from a paralytic stroke, and lived in Richland with her daughter, Mrs. Fay Thomas, whose husband died in 1944 leaving her with two children (claimant's grandchildren) to support. In 1954 Mrs. Thomas' daughter was 16, a junior in the Richland High School, and her son was 21, a third year engineering student at Missouri University. Mrs. Thomas owned the house in which they lived; and she was employed by the Richland Municipal Utilities. Investigation was begun by the Division of Welfare (hereinafter called Division) toward removing claimant from the rolls when it was learned that Mrs. Thomas received a salary increase of $25 commencing in 1954 and that Old Age and Survivor's Insurance of $18.80 per month was being received for her minor daughter because of her father's death. The reason given for the Division's action of February 8, 1954 was that 'income from employment of daughter (of claimant) * * * is sufficient to meet all expenses of the entire household group'. This action was based on a budget prepared by a case worker, showing three members of the household and considering the son self-supporting. After claimant appealed the budget was revised to consider a household of four, but including in the family income the son's earnings from summer employment. These budgests, claimant's evidence as to income and expenses, and the Director's finding of facts, are set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals and we adopt them as a part of this opinion. Other facts will be mentioned in connection with the relings hereinafter made.
The Director's conclusion from the facts found was that 'there is sufficient income in the home to meet the needs of the family of claimant's daughter and to furnish claimant a subsistance compatible with decency and health.' Claimant contends this decision is arbitrary and unreasonable on two grounds, namely that the Director used and applied standard budget items without regard to the actual need of the family and that he refused to consider the needs of the son while attending Missouri University. These were the grounds stated by the Circuit Court for reversing the Director's order. The Circuit Court, as does claimant, relied on Hagy v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.App., 259 S.W.2d 101, 104 as holding that standard budget items could not be used. Although, in that case, there is criticism of the use therein of the standard item for food (which criticism really seems to involve failure to allow for transportation) the real basis of that decision was that 'the decision of the director was arbitrary and unreasonable in following the budget prepared by the case worker and ignoring the undisputed facts in this case.' As we read the Hagy opinion, most of the undisputed facts concerned the amount of income involved, which was overestimated, 259 S.W.2d loc. cit. 104, although taxes, repairs and some other items were listed in the budget as less than they actually were. In any event, Section 208.010 ( ) has been amended since the decision in the Hagy case, Laws 1953, p. 644, so that it now contains the following provision: '* * * 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 in accordance with standards developed by the Division of Welfare. * * *' This italicised clause added by this amendment unquestionably provides the authority to develop and use reasonable standards for some usual essential expense items such as food and clothing.
The reason for granting such authority has been pointed out by the Supreme Court of Washington in thus stating the problem of administering old age assistance:
Senior Citizens League v. Department of Social Security, 38 Wash.2d 142, 228 P.2d 478, 489.
Review in this case is on the record of the proceedings had before and certified by the Director. Secs. 208.100, subd. 4 and 208.110. Reversal and remand to the Director is authorized by Sec. 208.100 subd. 5, if his decision was arbitrary or unreasonable. (The only ground claimed herein.) We have held that only if the Director's decision is not based on substantial evidence, can his findings of facts and order based thereon be characterized as arbitrary or unreasonable and his determination reversed for that reason. Ellis v. State Department of Public Health & Welfare, Mo.Sup., 285...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prairie Lakes Health Care System, Inc. v. Wookey
...Cal.Rptr. 831, 832 (1962); Commonwealth v. Goldman, 180 Pa.Super. 337, 119 A.2d 631, 632 (1956); Thornsberry v. State Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 365 Mo. 1217, 295 S.W.2d 372, 376 (1956); Cherokee Cty. v. Smith, 219 Iowa 490, 258 N.W. 182, 185 (1935). See also Terrance A. Kline, A Ratio......
-
Rossomanno v. Laclede Cab Co.
...have needs for medical attention, Thornsberry v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, Mo.App., 285 S.W.2d 77, reversed 365 Mo. 1217, 295 S.W.2d 372; the way a layman usually determines he has a disease affecting an internal organ is to be so advised by a physician, Baugh v. Life & Casu......
-
Roth v. Roth
...for his parents. Howlett v. Social Security Commission, 347 Mo. 784, 149 S.W.2d 806 (1941); Thornsberry v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare, 365 Mo. 1217, 295 S.W.2d 372 (1956). Therefore, the excess of his contributions over his expenses, whatever the amount was, went into the inve......
-
Carlisle v. State Dept. of Public Health and Welfare
...V.A.M.S.; Foster v. State Social Security Commission, Mo.App., 187 S.W.2d 870, 872[1, 2]; Thornsberry v. State Department of Public Health and Welfare, 365 Mo. 1217, 295 S.W.2d 372, 374[2, 3]. The circuit court should not order applicant reinstated on the rolls of the commission for the rea......