2022 COA 7
Colo. Ct. App.2022Background
- McLellan applied for SSI (2007); Larimer County provided AND‑SO interim assistance beginning in 2012 while claim was pending.
- In 2017 SSA approved benefits retroactive to 2012 and calculated $30,402.90 due; SSA paid installment disbursements in 2018 (first $2,250 on Mar. 14, second $2,250 on Sept. 5) and on Sept. 5 the SSA sent Larimer County $11,571 as reimbursement.
- McLellan had signed an IM‑14 authorization form (Oct. 2017) that authorizes recovery from the 'first retroactive SSI payment.'
- McLellan challenged the county's retention of $11,571, arguing the IAR regulation permits recovery only from the first SSA check (the first installment) and that the IM‑14 was invalid (no state signature and expired).
- Administrative Court and the Department’s Office of Appeals upheld Larimer County; the district court affirmed on judicial review under the APA; McLellan appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of 'first retroactive SSI payment' | McLellan: means the first SSA distribution/check (first installment) | Dept/Larimer: means the first SSI benefit payment as a whole (even if paid in installments) | Court: 'first SSI benefit payment' means the full retroactive benefit as initially determined (per 20 C.F.R. §416.1902); reimbursement from county was proper |
| Validity of IM‑14 without state signature | McLellan: IM‑14 invalid because SSA‑Colorado agreement requires a state signature | Dept/Larimer: State regulation requires only client signature; absence of state signature on IM‑14 immaterial | Court: SSA‑Colorado agreement not in record; IAR Reg requires only client signature, so IM‑14 valid |
| Expiration of IM‑14 | McLellan: authorization expired after one year (Oct. 2018) or upon first payment (Mar. 2018) | Dept/Larimer: authorization remained effective when SSA withheld reimbursement in Sept. 2018; federal rule keeps authorization effective until SSA makes the first SSI benefit payment | Court: IM‑14 was still effective when SSA reimbursed county in Sept. 2018; March disbursement was an installment, not the first SSI benefit payment |
| Standing to sue | Dept: McLellan suffered no injury because she conceded she owes the money | McLellan: alleged economic loss from defendants retaining $11,571; remedies available against her do not negate injury | Court: McLellan has standing — allegation of economic loss is sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Romero v. Colo. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 417 P.3d 914 (Colo. App. 2018) (administrative-review standard and deference context)
- Petron Dev. Co. v. Wash. Cnty. Bd. of Equalization, 91 P.3d 408 (Colo. App. 2003) (statutory/regulatory construction principles)
- Lewis v. Taylor, 375 P.3d 1205 (Colo. 2016) (plain‑meaning rule and giving effect to every term)
- Industrial Comm'n v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 690 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1984) (construe state and federal schemes harmoniously)
- Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) (courts may identify applicable legal theories not raised by parties)
- U.S. Nat'l Bank of Or. v. Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc., 508 U.S. 439 (1993) (courts may consider antecedent dispositive issues)
- Town of Erie v. Eason, 18 P.3d 1271 (Colo. 2001) (avoid statutory constructions producing absurd results)