Alfred Crawford Daniel Carrasco Jerry Parker v. Russell S. Gould William Mayer, (Two Cases)

Opinion by Judge TANG; Concurrence by Judge TROTT.

The named plaintiffs in this action filed suit on behalf of a class consisting of all current and future patients involuntarily committed to California state psychiatric hospitals. 1 The plaintiffs challenge the defendants’ practice of deducting patients’ money, including Social Security benefits, from the personal deposit accounts maintained for each patient, to reimburse hospitals for the cost of patient care and maintenance.

Defendants, the Secretary of the California Health and Welfare Agency et al. (“California”), appeal from the district court judgment entered after a hearing on cross motions for summary judgment. The district court enjoined California’s practice of withdrawing patients’ Social Security benefits without their consent. The court also enjoined deduction of any funds from patients’ accounts without adequate notice, including notice that Social Security benefits and Veterans benefits cannot be used to pay the cost of care without a patient’s consent.

The main issue on appeal is whether 42 U.S.C. § 407 (a) preempts the procedure whereby California deducts Social Security benefits from patients’ hospital trust…

Concurring.

From a policy point of view, the end result in this case appears — to me at least — to be nonsensical. The State is picking up the bill for the hospitalized patients’ necessities, but cannot obtain reimbursement from the patients’ available funds if the patients resist. Thus, a recalcitrant patient receiving social security payments could pile up in about ten years an untouchable bank account of $250,-000 while requiring taxpayers to foot the bill for the costs of his hospitalization. The justification for such a result escapes me, and the upshot of our decision hardly seems consistent with the purpose of the Social Security Act. Could Congress have intended this outcome?

Nevertheless, Judge Tang’s conclusion seems to be compelled by Brinkman v. Rohm, 878 F.2d 263 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). 42 U.S.C. § 407 as construed by Bennett v. Arkansas, 485 U.S. 395 , 108 S.Ct. 1204 , 99 L.Ed.2d 455 (1988) (per curiam), says what it says, and we should be loath to constrict the catchall words, “or other legal process” to allow the state access to a patient-debtor’s money. If the patient-debtor were not under the absolute control of the state, a process such as execution,…

56 F.3d 1162 63 USLW 2778 , 32 Fed.R.Serv.3d 749 , 48 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 181, Unempl.Ins.Rep. (CCH) P 14642B Alfred CRAWFORD; Daniel Carrasco; Jerry Parker, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Russell S. GOULD; William Mayer, et al., Defendants-Appellants (Two Cases). Nos. 93-17303, 93-17305. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 12, 1995. Decided June 7, 1995. As Amended Aug. 25, 1995. Barbara Haukedalen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, CA, for defendants-appellants. Eric R. Gelber, Protection & Advocacy, Sacramento, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before: TANG, SCHROEDER and TROTT, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge TANG; Concurrence by Judge TROTT. TANG, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 The named plaintiffs in this action filed suit on behalf of a class consisting of all current and future patients involuntarily committed to California state psychiatric hospitals. 1 The plaintiffs challenge the defendants' practice of deducting patients' money, including Social Security benefits, from the personal deposit accounts maintained for each patient, to reimburse hospitals for the…