41 Pa. Commw. 254 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1979
Opinion by
George Carr has appealed from an order of the Secretary of Welfare affirming the order of a hearing examiner discontinuing public assistance to the Carr family.
Before August 1977, Mr. Carr received Supplemental Security Income
$336.44 Mr. Carr’s OASDI benefits per month
—54.00 Mr. Carr’s share of assistance grant (additional amount family would receive if Mr. Carr were included in assistance unit)
$282.44
—7.70 Mr. Carr’s Medicare payments
$274.74
—45.70 Mr. Carr’s Medical costs
$229.04 Expected contribution to family
$459.00 Public assistance grant for 6 person household
—292.80 OASDI benefits to Mrs. Carr and children
$166.20 Adjusted grant per month
—229.04 Expected contribution from Mr. Carr
$ 0.00 Required amount of assistance
The appellant concedes that the welfare authorities properly applied existing regulations in finding his family ineligible for AFDC. He says, however, that Section 183.44 of the regulations is invalid because it violates federal regulations and the equal protection clauses of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Carr says that the calculation required by DPW regulation Section 183.44, providing that $229.04 of his personal OASDI benefit of $336.04 must be considered as his expected contribution to the family, violates federal regulations by allowing an inadequate amount of money for his personal needs. In support of this proposition he points to regulations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) which govern the expenditure of social security benefits certified to a representative payee on behalf of an incompetent beneficiary. See 20 C.F.R. §404.1601 et seq. (1978). In summary, these regulations require that the representative payee apply the certified payments for the use and benefit of the beneficiary and that he use the payments for the support of the beneficiary’s family only after the beneficiary’s current maintenance needs are met. Mr. Carr says that these standards should be applied by DPW in the calculation of his expected contribution of OASDI benefits to his family. We disagree. The HEW regulations were established to protect beneficiaries whose benefits are paid to and expended by third parties. Mr. Carr main
Mr. Carr also cites HEW regulation, 45 C.F.R. §233.20(a) (vi) (1977), as providing a guideline for the amount of support a relative may be required to provide to a public assistance applicant. That regulation provides in pertinent part as follows:
Except for child support obligations assigned pursuant to §232.11 of this chapter, if the State agency holds relatives responsible for the support of applicants and recipients, (a) include an income scale for use in determining whether responsible relatives have sufficient income to warrant expectation that they can contribute to the support of applicants or recipients, which income scale exceeds a minimum level of living and at least represents a minimum level of adequacy that takes account of the needs and other obligations of the relatives; and (b) provide that no request will be made for contributions from relatives whose net cash income is below the income scale. In family groups living together, income of the spouse is considered, available for his spouse and income of a parent is considered available for childreen under 21. . . . (Emphasis added.)
Mr. Carr says that DPW violated this regulation by failing to include in the state plan an income scale exceeding a minimum level of adequacy in determining the amount of his expected contribution to his family. This argument ignores the last sentence of the regulation, which makes the income of a spouse or parent available to the family group with which he or she lives and removes the income of spouses and parents from the income scale requirement. Furthermore, even if a rmrnrmrm income scale were required for parents and
Mr. Carr says that the denial of AFDC benefits violates his constitutional right to equal protection of the laws because the total income to his family is less under OASDI than it would be if he received SSI benefits.
The income which may be considered by state welfare authorities in determining eligibility for AFDC is governed by federal law.
The test for whether social welfare programs violate constitutional equal protection is set out in Dan
In the area of economies and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality. ’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 78, 55 L.Ed. 369, 377, 31 S.Ct. 337. ‘The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accomodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U.S. 61, 69-70, 57 L.Ed. 730, 734, 33 S.Ct. 441. ‘A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 426, 6 L.Ed. 2d 393, 399, 81 S.Ct. 1101.
We believe that there is a reasonable basis for treating SSI and OASDI benefits differently in the calculation of family income. Although these programs may overlap somewhat in their coverage, they were designed to remedy different social problems and have different eligibility requirements. The SSI program was created in 1972 to alleviate poverty among ■ the elderly and disabled by eliminating the disparate benefits provided by state programs and substituting standard federal benefits to those who demonstrate financial need. To insure uniform minimum incomes among recipients in different states, Congress made SSI benefits exempt from the eligibility requirements of state AFDC programs. OASDI, on the other hand,
Order affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 13th day of March, 1979, the order of the Secretary of Welfare dated November 3,1977 is hereby affirmed.
42 U.S.C. §1381 et seq.
42 U.S.C. §601 et seq.
42 U.S.C. §401 et seq.
55 Pa. Code §183.44.
Mr. Oarr offers the following comparison :
Monthly income as OASDI recipient:
$336.44 Mr. Carr’s OASDI benefits
292.80 OASDI benefits for spouse and children
$629.24 Total family income Monthly income as SSI recipient:
$210.00 Mr. Carr’s SSI benefits
459.00 AFDC for spouse and children
$669.00 Total family income
The definition of disability under OASDI is found at 42 U.S.C. §423(d) (1) (A). The definition under SSI is at 42 U.S.C. §1382c(a) (3) (A).
State law requires that DPW calculate income in accordance with Federal law and regulations. See Section 432.12 of the Public Welfare Code, Act of June 13, 1967, P.L. 31, as amended, added by Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 993, §5, 62 P.S. §432.12.