Driskill

I respectfully dissent.

The issue posed is whether the denial of retroactive benefits to plaintiff is contrary to the direction of Welfare and Institutions Code section 12304. I conclude that it is. My conclusion is buttressed by the dual concept of (1) debt and (2) public policy developed in Leach v. Swoap (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 685 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 62 ],

I

The Leach court accepts the concept of “debt” as articulated by our Supreme Court in Bd. of Soc. Welfare v. County of L. A. (1945) 27 Cal.2d 81, 86 [ 162 P.2d 630 ]: “The obligation to pay became a debt due from the county to the applicant as of the date the latter was first entitled to receive aid.” (Italics added.) Thus, we are not to look at how plaintiff weathered the conditions at the time he was being denied benefits. Rather, we must explore the issue of when he became entitled to the benefits.

In examining entitlement, we must first determine when section 12304, under which plaintiff makes his claim, became operative. Assembly Bill No. 853, which refers to section 12304, among others, 1 provides: “This act shall apply retroactively to January 1, 1974, to the extent that it may legally do so.” Thus, January 1 is the…

J.— Plaintiff, a 35-year-old man afflicted with quadriplegia, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate in which he sought to compel the California Department of Benefit Payments (hereinafter Department) to pay him retroactive benefits for attendant care services.

Plaintiff is capable of managing his own legal, financial, personal and business affairs, except that he needs a full-time attendant to provide *624 him with ordinary housekeeping services and other in-home supportive services such as assistance in dressing, getting into and out of bed, eating, and performing bodily functions.

Beginning on November 1, 1973, and in accordance with statutes then in effect, the County of Yolo contracted with an attendant care provider, Mrs. Rita Hamm, to perform these services for plaintiff on a full-time, live-in basis. Under the contract, the County of Yolo paid Mrs. Hamm $230 per month for the months of November 1973 through February 1974. At the time of plaintiff’s regular quarterly reevaluation of need, this rate was renegotiated to $300 per month for the months of March through May 1974.

On December 5, 1973, the Governor signed into law Assembly Bill…