Velma Martin v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary

Velma Martin, on behalf of herself and other Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants, contends that 20 C.F.R. § 416 .-1123(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (b)(1)(B) violate their rights to equal protection. We disagree.

*583 BACKGROUND

As the widow of a former railroad employee, Martin became eligible to receive monthly survivor’s benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) in December 1978. In May 1985, the Board informed Martin that she had been overpaid during the first four years by $8,528.92. According to the Board, this overpayment stemmed from Martin’s failure to report additional income. Consequently, the Board informed Martin that her entire monthly benefit of $268.16 would be suspended for 34 months. This withholding reduced Martin’s monthly income to about $386, the amount she received in Social Security Retirement Benefits.

Martin petitioned the Board for a waiver of the repayment. Faulting Martin for the overpayment, the Board denied the petition. In January 1987, she applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for SSI benefits to supplement her Social Security Retirement Benefits. After determining that Martin’s income exceeded the maximum income…

concurring in the judgment.

I agree that we must review this case under a rational basis standard. I write separately because I disagree that the basis the government has advanced is rational. I concur because the government has adopted its fallacious reasoning from our prior decision in this case, Martin v. Sullivan, 932 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir.1990) (as amended), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 648 , 116 L.Ed.2d 665 (1991) (Martin I).

In Martin I we found that 20 C.F.R. § 416.1123 (b)(1) does not violate the language or intent of Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq. Id. Our decision permitted the Social Security Administration (SSA) to deny Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to Velma Martin, forcing her to live on $386 per month. In addition to her $386 per month, Martin has a pension from the Railroad Retirement Board (Board) that our decision permitted the SSA to calculate as “income” under 20 C.F.R. § 416.1123 (b)(1) despite the fact that this income was, as far as Martin was concerned, invisible, inaccessible, indeed non-existent, in that it was being withheld from her to make up a prior overpayment by the Board. As we construed the…

976 F.2d 582 38 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 671 Velma MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-15137. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 22, 1992. Decided Oct. 5, 1992. Gill Deford, National Sr. Citizens Law Center, Los Angeles, Cal., Evelyn R. Frank, Legal Aid Soc. of Alameda County, Oakland, Cal., Paul Rose, Legal Aid Soc. of Alameda County, Hayward, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. John S. Koppel, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., George C. Stoll, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., William Kanter, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: CANBY, REINHARDT, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. CANBY, Circuit Judge: 1 Velma Martin, on behalf of herself and other Supplemental Security Income (SSI) claimants, contends that 20 C.F.R. § 416.1123 (b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. § 1383 (b)(1)(B) violate their rights to equal protection. We disagree.BACKGROUND 2 As the widow of a former railroad employee, Martin became eligible to receive monthly survivor's benefits from the Railroad Retirement…