Hugh Whaley v. Patricia Harris, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Secretary) appeals the district court’s order setting aside the Secretary’s' decision to disallow Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to the plaintiff, Hugh Whaley. The Secretary contends that Whaley was ineligible for SSI benefits because the additional veterans’ benefits that he receives as a father with minor dependent children must be included as income available to him in computing his eligibility for SSI benefits. At issue on this appeal is the Secretary’s interpretation of the term “income” as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. § 1382a of the Social Security Act and as defined in regulations adopted pursuant to that Act.

The Secretary determined that Whaley was ineligible for SSI benefits because of excess income. Whaley exhausted his administrative remedies and sought judicial review of the Secretary’s decision. The district court, relying on a magistrate’s recommendation, reversed the Secretary’s decision without opinion. We hold that the Secretary’s interpretation was reasonable and reverse the decision of the district court.

Whaley is a veteran receiving benefits under the Veterans’ Act, 38 U.S.C. §…

dissenting:

I dissent. The clear intent of the Veterans Act and the regulations was to make the monthly payment for dependents available for the purpose of supporting the veterans’ dependents — in this case, $51.11 for Mr. Whaley’s children. It is undisputed that he spent these funds for the benefit of these dependent, children in faithful performance of the clear purpose for which the money was sent to him.

The interpretation of the Veterans Administration regulations by the Secretary of HEW is not entitled to deference. To interpret those regulations, under which the veteran received the $51.11 payment for the benefit of his dependent children, so as to disqualify the veteran from receiving the SSI payment of $30.17 to which he would otherwise be entitled as an individual, is to say, in effect, that he is expected to use $30.17 of the $51.11 provided for his dependents, for his own support to bring him up to the minimum level contemplated by the SSI program. This interpretation also results in the veteran losing substantial medical benefits, which compounds the problem for the veteran.

This overly legalistic interpretation of the statutes and regulations in question so…

650 F.2d 181 Hugh WHALEY, Appellee, v. Patricia HARRIS, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellant. No. 79-4210. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 6, 1981. 1 Dennis J. Mulshine, San Francisco, argued, Robert Varnum, Atty., Stuart E. Schiffer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., on brief, for appellant. 2 Darci Reid, Fresno, Cal., for appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 4 Before HUG and TANG, Circuit Judges, and MURRAY * , Senior District Judge. WILLIAM D. MURRAY, Senior District Judge: 5 The Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Secretary) appeals the district court's order setting aside the Secretary's decision to disallow Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to the plaintiff, Hugh Whaley. The Secretary contends that Whaley was ineligible for SSI benefits because the additional veterans' benefits that he receives as a father with minor dependent children must be included as income available to him in computing his eligibility for SSI benefits. At issue on this appeal is the Secretary's interpretation of the term "income" as that term is used in 42 U.S.C.…