*3 CARTER, Before GOODWIN and WAL- LACE, Circuit Judges. CARTER,
JAMES M. Judge: Circuit Joseph represents Baur a class of resi- of public dents alcoholic treatment centers Angeles County, Los California, who are seeking reinstatement of Supplemental Se- curity Income benefits to them under Title XVI Act, Security Social 42 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. § The Secretary of H.E.W. discontinued their benefits because they by were found an administrative law judge to be inmates of institution who ineligible for supplemental income pay- ments under 42 1382(e)(1)(A). U.S.C. § District Court for the Central District of California findings affirmed the of the ad- ministrative judge. appeal On Baur (1) contends: his classification as an “in- mate” under 42 1382(e)(1)(A) § act, authorized (2) even prop- if erly inmate, classified as an qualifies he the regulatory exception for residents of a public vocational training institution under 416.231(b)(3). 20 C.F.R. agree We with the district agency’s court that the interpre- application tation and of the statute is cor- rect and AFFIRM.
I. FACTS. Appellants are residents of the al- coholic treatment Angeles centers in Los County, California, known Antelope Val- ley Rehabilitation (AVRC Centers or the Centers). AVRC is a state-licensed facility operated owned and by the county Los Angeles. provide The Centers non-inten- in-patient sive medical care and mental institution; in- inmates of to disabled rehabilitation health of the Cen- three fourths are not excluded from category Over inmate digent men. suffering from some as- training the vocational excep- institution patients ters’ Residency at AVRC is regulations, tion contained in the of alcoholism. 20 C.F.R. pect 416.231(b)(3); voluntary. and that AVRC does not receive Title appel- XIX funds on behalf of 1974, 1, appellants re- January Prior lants, making ineligible them also for that payments un- assistance state ceived exception to the inmate exclusion. pro- aid categorical the old state-federal der XIV of the Titles I and pursuant grams A final administrative review by Ap- (Old Age Assistance and Security Act Social peals Council of the Bureau of Hearings However, Disabled). ef- Totally Aid to the and Appeals sustained the administrative 1974, Title XVI of the January fective law judge’s ruling. This became the final seq., et Act, 42 U.S.C. Security Social decision of the Secretary of H.E.W. *4 seq., repealed et programs the old § Appeal was taken to the United States comprehensive a new federal created District Court for the Central District of needy assistance to the of income
program 26, 1976, California. April On that court program The new and disabled. aged, blind findings made extensive of fact and conclu- Security In- Supplemental known as the is sions of and affirmed the decision of (SSI). program come Secretary. alia, Ti- replaced, inter former When SSI Act, Security I and XIV of Social tles 1611(e)(1)(A). II. SCOPE OF § were converted to the initially appellants 1611(e)(1)(A) Section of the Social Securi- pro- through “grandfathering” rolls Act, 1382(e)(1)(A) ty provides: 42 U.S.C. § See Social Security new law. vision “Except provided in subparagraph Act, 1611(g), 1382(g). But § § (B), no person eligible shall be an individ- 5, 1978, Security around March Social ual or eligible spouse purposes of this appellants notified Administration subchapter with respect any month if were to terminated payments their throughout such month he is an inmate of Act, 1611(e)(1)(A) of the 42 U.S.C. under § public a institution.”1 1382(e)(1)(A), because were inmates which not receive public a institution did of provision The has clarified this Title XIX of the Social payments under 416.231(b): in 20 C.F.R. § (Grants to for Medical Security Act States “(1) An ‘institution’ is an establishment Programs). Assistance (in which furnishes single multiple fa- cilities) their administrative Appellants pursued food and shelter to four or more and, hearing proprietor to a at which an adminis- unrelated to the remedies ineligible addition, judge provides held them to be trative law some treatment or 1611(e)(1)(A). services which payments beyond under meet some need for SSI specifically appellants provision the basic of shelter. He found food and (B) speci- Subparagraph permits payment argument of Nor 1. would this be successful on public appeal. Subparagraph (B) specifically requires benefits to inmates of fied eligible, qualifying “hospital, if their insti- a institution who would otherwise be to be a ex- hospital, facility, home, facility, nursing care nurs- tution is a ing ing payments extended tended care or interme- home, facility facility” receiv- or intermediate care diate care and AVRC is none of these. plan approved Moreover, directly a un- under state AVRCdoes not receive Title Appellants subchapter XIX Act. of the agency der contended XIX funds for the services it renders. The county system before the that since AVRC other institutions which integrated Angeles County Los only Title XIX receive funds receive them for program facilities, Title XIX health which does receive the services rendered in their not for services, qualifies part of its benefits for AVRC county services rendered in other facilities. receiving This as an institution such benefits. argument rejected agency and has appeal. not been renewed on 92-231, “(2) H.R.Rep. A an institu- institution.” ‘public institution’ 92d Con- govern- of a responsibility gress, Session, U.S.Code, that is the tion 1st Congres- unit, governmen- over a which mental sional & Administrative News p. 5136. And unit administrative control. tal exercises interpretation note comports “(3) dictionary with a definition An of a institution’ of “inmates” ‘inmate person living family, community, in a be “one of a is a who insti- or other receiving group occupying single dwelling tution and and/or a home or residence, appropriate per- place other especially]: a requirements. person A is not con- son’s person kept (as confined or in an institution is in sidered an inmate when he asylum, prison, house).” or poor Web- training vocational institu- educational or ster’s Third New Dictionary International purposes securing tion educa- (1968) (emphasis in original). training.” tional vocational Admittedly contemporary one of the spe- Secretary’s Appellants contest inter- usages cialized of “inmate” refers to per- 1611(e)(1)(A) it pretation of because sons held in some kind of institutional con- no makes distinction between custodial and However, finement under restraint. as the institutions. noncustodial inmates dictionary illustrates, definition above term They contend the “inmates” as used in general meaning more of the word refers to can to refer to act construed any persons occupying stated dwelling. “one who is confined in a institu- custodial general Other dictionaries confirm this tion form under some of restraint.” usage See, ordinary of the term. e. g., The *5 Secretary’s contrary interpretation English Shorter Oxford Dictionary 1076 (1) to be because claimed unauthorized it is (3rd 1973) (“1. ed. One who dwells with ordinary in and conflict with the common (now others in the rare) same house . “inmate”; (2) usage of the term because it 2. In relation to the house: occupant an policy program; frustrates the of the SSI = others; hence, occas., along with Indwel- (3) is internally and because it inconsistent ler, Inhabitant, Occupier.”); Black’s Law provision program, with another of the 42 Dictionary (Revised 1968) (“A 4th ed. 1382(e)(3), persons which requires person lodges who or dwells in the same undergo who are alcoholics to treatment another, house with occupying different appropriate for their condition to become rooms, using but the same for door passing eligible for benefits. in house.”); and out of the Bouvier’s Law
First, appellants contend Dictionary (Rawle’s “inmates” Revision, 3rd 8th commonly 1914) (“One understood to refer to ed. who dwells in of custody house, in under some of kind restraint. the latter dwelling another’s at the They cite the only example the of inmate same in house.”). time the said The Secre- provided legislative history exclusion in the tary correctly construed the term “inmate” program: encompass of the SSI “No assistance bene to occupancy noncustodial of in- paid an in penal fits will to individual stitutions well as occupancy.2 custodial interpreting hospital 2. The case law discovered the for rheumatism in a for one early physician. term “inmate” involves constructions of to Upon two weeks on advice of his inquired applicants insurance which of company forms the insured’s death the insurance re- speci- pay whether had allegedly ever been inmates of fused to because the insured had Though application. fied institutions. dated not direct- lied on his Construing insurance ly point helpful by way on these cases can be of the term “inmate” the court ruled: “ analogy. Typical Security is Farrell v. Life ‘Inmate’ is defined as follows: Company, (2 Insurance 125 F. Cir. apart- who ‘One lives in the same or house 1903). There the relevant insurance form in- another; lodger; esp. with ment a fellow one quired applicants of whether had “ever occupants asylum, hospital, of the an of or Sanitarium, any Infirmary, an been inmate at prison; extension, occupies one who Institution, Assylum Hospital?” Farrell re- lodges any place dwelling.’ Webster. fact, sponded, prior filling “No.” In to out the ‘One who is a mate or associate voluntarily insurance form he had received occupancy hence, place; indweller; of a Second, appellants process contend the Sec In the of implementing pur- these poses, H.E.W., retary’s interpretation will frustrate of in the preamble newly Congress creating promulgated intent of legislative regula- tions, stated: program. According appellants to primary purpose program of the SSI “Most of the substantive comments con- public to shift the of welfare from local cerning cost Subpart B were individuals government government. to the federal expressing reservations with respect However, sup this contention does not find the limitation on eligibility due to institu- of the act. port legislative history in the tional Specifically, status. they were Undoubtedly program the new federal concerned supplemental that no security income eligibility payments to make uniform the intended would be made to in- Thus, requirements under the mates of institutions. and the benefits government State and local pro social insurance entities federal supplemental precluded from considering the grams. government The federal has as availabili- ty supplemental security income funds major portion responsibility sumed a of the when determining how to meet the earnings fall cost providing for those whose blind, aged, of care of such and disabled specified below levels. Yet did However, inmates in institutions. existing state displace not determine to legislative language in Title XVI is programs assisting needy aged, specific respect with blind Considerations of eco and disabled. congressional pre- reflects intent respect for the efficiency
nomic as well as vent the shift of pro- institutional responsibility to traditionally state’s local grams traditionally respon- care to motivate the citizens seemed sibility govern- and local State exception persons already from benefits ments, to the Federal Government.” 39 receiving treatment at state or local institu Fed.Reg. (1974). tions. agency administrative clothed Reporting Congress, on the bill to with responsibility for implementing con Ways pro- House and Means Committee gressional pronouncements is generally well the act to purposes claimed one of the *6 acquainted with policy of the statute it provide to an “efficient and economical administers. particularly This is true when providing method of this assistance.” H.R. agency long has been involved 92-231, Session, Congress, 1972 Rep. 92d 1st construction given and administration of a U.S.Code, Congressional & Administrative Where, predecessors. here, statute or its p. Report News 5133. The same House the agency experience, has extensive has elaborated: relied on the meaning common of the rele “Your committee believes that the new specific vant statute’s language, and can program financed as it from would be point important congressional purposes to general revenues and with the benefits by interpretation, only furthered a clear need, pay people only based on should to showing contrary by of a intent the extent that their needs are not met justify overruling agency’s will regula sources, including, from other oth- among tions. ers, security payments, payments social by agencies, payments Appellants respond other from that if noncustodial private pension plans.” Id. at inmates properly 5135-36. institutions are added.) (Emphasis covered the exclusion from benefits in inhabitant; lodger against any an as the therefore is associated different or technical house, dwelling factory, hospital, inmate of a use.” Id. at 688. prison.’ Century. See also: Farmers Traders & Life Ins. Co. v. Dalheim, nothing 145, 89, There is to show that word Misc. 24 N.Y.S.2d (1940) (Phrase ap- any hospital ‘inmate’ was used or understood in said “inmate of or sani ordinary plication any ordinary sense other than its tarium” uses the term in its sense to presumption patient going hospital”.). refer “a sense as thus defined. The to to a can because the kinds of 1611(e)(1)(A), it be receiving Title XIX § being met payments. inmates are of such Had needs further limitations been argu- This charge. they institution free that intended would have expressly been purpose with the comports provided. stated ably best needy provide benefits act to Third, appellants contend ex that their needs are not “only to the extent payments clusion from SSI is inconsistent H.R.Rep. 92- other sources.” See met from with the Act’s purpose stated of providing Cong. & 231, quoted U.S.Code Ad- supra; SSI benefits to persons undergoing treat they urge Thus p. 5136. min.News ment for alcoholism. 1611(e)(3) Section regulation, wherein implementing Act, 1382(e)(3), requires any to be establish- it an institution defines drug addicts or undergo alcoholics to treat food and shelter which “furnishes ment appropriate ment for their condition to be provides . . some eligible for SSI benefits.3 In the ordinary services”, be construed should treatment case it was contemplated that such food, require that shelter and serv- to would receive benefits as soon as they provided without cost to inmate. ices be began treatment. The report committee Assertedly approach appellants this under states: subject not to exclusion from would “Your committee believes those peo- under payments because California disabled, ple who are in whole or in part, required or their relatives can be they as a result of of drugs the use or alcohol at rendered AVRC un- pay for should be entitled to benefits under they pay. The Secretary less unable program this they undergo unless appro- if residents are contends that even AVRC priate, available an ap- obligated pay for their own care proved facility, provides. and the bill so within squarely still fall the literal statuto- committee, Your while recognizing that ry exclusion of “inmates of a institu- the use of drugs may or alcohol indeed tion” and must be denied benefits. conditions, cause disabling believes that by appellants This contention is an invita- when is susceptible the condition to treat- the statutory language tion to read into ment, appropriate treatment at Govern- 1611(e)(1)(A) implicit limitations on the expense ment is an essential part of the scope of its otherwise unrestricted lan- rehabilitation process of so people dis- guage. agree Secretary, We how- 92-231, H.R.Rep. U.S.Code, abled.” ever, that the of AVRC fall residents liter- Congressional and Administrative News ally within the exclusion from benefits in p. 5135. and on that basis alone can section From appellants argue this payments. spe-
denied SSI statute is being cific, denied under unambiguous 1611(e)(1)(A) and all-inclusive. It benefits ex- *7 for engaging very from all in the public cludes benefits “inmates of treatment re- quired by 1611(e)(3). regard appellants institutions” without But basis on seek provide the their to 1611(e)(3). which services. extract too much from § That guarantee That intended the breadth of the section does not SSI bene- language drug in this exclusion is evident from fits to all addicts and if they alcoholics 1611(e)(1)(B) the it provided fact that in consent to undergo treatment their for ill- single, express exception Rather, for for up a certain ness. it sets one additional con- person aged, drug (as may 3. “No is an or be) who blind disabled addict or alcoholic the case at solely by disability (as facility approved purposes individual reason of de- an institution or for 1382c(a)(3) title) paragraph by (so of Secretary long termined under section this of this the as eligible eligible spouse available) shall be an individual or treatment is and demonstrates that purposes subchapter respect complying terms, conditions, of this with to he is and any medically requirements month if such individual is deter- of such treatment with and re- drug to be a addict quirements imposed by mined or an alcoholic unless the under any undergoing such individual is subparagraph (B).” 1382(e)(3)(A). 42 U.S.C. may appropriate that for his condition as a cal, social people It and health mental of suf- receipt payments. of such to dition statutory disabling the prior fering disability.” of from illness and not override is an public institutions. However, inmates of of appellants “pri- exclusion contend that the intended to provision independent It is an the mary purpose” applied standard ad- of persons disabled because that assure judge law with ministrative is inconsistent alcoholism, whether drug addiction act, it congres- because frustrates the institution, a they inmates of re- sional intent disabled individuals perpetuate funds to cannot utilize gainful employment pos- turn as soon as to their addiction.4 sible. Certainly have in Congress must III. VOCATIONAL TRAINING THE that disabled return to tended individuals EXCEPTION. INSTITUTION possible, when but does not neces work this a In definition of “inmate of its of exception the creation to sitate 416.231(b)(3) pro- institution” 20 C.F.R. § person for every inmate exclusion disabled vides: some who can show that he receives or she an inmate person “A is not considered experience work of a rehabilitation when in a educational he is this program. Secretary promulgated The institution, training vocational scope his its is exception and delineation of voca- securing education or purposes of it manifest to be afforded deference unless training.” tional ly purpose act. The frustrates of the even is that Appellants’ final contention test “primary purpose” used Secre at inmates found to be if are otherwise purposes in conflict of tary is not with statute, purposes AVRC for the Act. exception. regulatory qualify for this Furthermore, AVRC, its rehabilita- integral part of review of this fac as an our pa- attempts prepare to finding is limited program, tion tual to determination life out- with the stresses of cope tients in the to whether there is substantial evidence institution, in- including the stress to findings side as a whole support record with daily routine associated volved in judge. law In this re the administrative Accordingly, employment. evidence gard it is evident that the determination at patients showed that submitted training in AVRC is not a vocational assignments super- and work AVRC receive Appellants amply is supported. stitution their rehabilitation. vision to facilitate training concede that vocational The secondary aspect program. of their judge The concluded administrative are limit experiences AVRC actual work at training for the qualify vocational operate support required ed pur- exception “primary an institution’s himself of AVRC the centers. director job training pose” must be explained: ruled that the primary purpose skills.” He the estab- job emphasis upon “The at AVRC is not more training of treatment at- skills, patterns work regular “Rather lishment of stating, training, than ac- performance, and the activity may work be described tendance [at AVRC] occupational ceptance supervision described as responsibility and has been therapy.” specific train- upon than it is vocational ing, though the latter available to some Appellants concede their brief that the *8 R. 67-68. extent.” of AVRC is not vocational purpose primary A that AVRC vocational train- holding is a words of the di- In the Centers’ training. apparent would rector, ignore “to institution ing of the center is purpose train the Centers not to physi- operate and to restore the fact that suffering alleviate Angeles treat Los stipulated parties are facilities that there have fact 4. The out-patient basis. on alcoholics with new skills to enable them individuals market, job develop but to
to enter health in psychological and social
physical, patients. judgment district court is AF-
FIRMED.
GOODWIN, Judge, concurring Circuit dissenting: agree majority Congress
I replace support intend
did not SSI state inmates of state institutions. I do not
for however,
agree, intended to
deny eligible otherwise when or their fami-
state institutions legally
lies were liable the state for their
support. person’s When the estate or fami-
ly is support, billed his the state does meaning “furnish” it within of 20 Rather, 416.231(b)(1).
C.F.R. the state simply
has support acted as a conduit for family
the estate or has furnished. Such a
person does not meet the definition of an institution,
inmate of an and therefore re- eligible
mains benefits to the extent family’s
of his estate’s or liability.
I would remand the case to the district
court, grant with instructions to relief to
any AVRC resident who can show that the holding
state is him or his family legally support.
liable for his America,
UNITED STATES
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. ALLEN, Allen,
Lincoln Albert aka Bud Allen,
Helen Carter and Lincoln Albert
Allen, Jr., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 77-3113. Appeals,
United States Court of
Ninth Circuit.
June 1978.