# Appendix — Richardson v. Wright > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1519%3A01 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 405 U.S. 208 ## Text 2 = oo APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT A ie „„ ALOT OL OO eGR OO ee, In the Supreme Court ol the Unite Ooronm Tzem, 1971 „ No. 70-161 Exxxor L. Rrowazpson, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellunt V. Ram WROHr, et al. No. 70-5211 Ram Waicut, et al., Appellants .- v. Exxxor L. Ramanbson, Beoretary of — Health, Education and Welfare FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA By Fe FILED MAY 10 AND 11,1971 7 s PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED OCTOBER 12,1971 eee rs enen * ae 4 An the Supreme Court of the Anited States 5 * 2 PPP > 2 2 No, 70161 oa ~ EILAaor L. — — 5 Health, Education and neo ps Appellant ° v. Rapm N et al. No. 705211 es ie Rabm e et al., geek V. . Exaaor L. e Secretary orf H ealth, Education and Welfare 2 ov APPEALS FROM .THE UNITED. STATES DISTRICT cous A, ‘FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 6 „ INDEX To 8 : Relevant Docket Bntris ut ade. Yo e * Inthe United States District Court forthe pit ai di. bia: * Bar rte : Plaintiff’s Complaint .. . e e Bip May 13 5 ee 1 — . 5 Vo. 1457770 in the United States District Court for h . te, N of Columbia 7 3 Motion for leave to file in forma pauperis, with ain 238 oints and uthoriti granted by McGuire Motion for leave to 2 in forma —— 8 3 N co for hited restraining order and preliminary injunetion, with affdavit, me points and ee a neta, filed if Motion for certification of action as main. authorities, filed - | Temporary restraining order entered by with points and authorities, filed Motion for convening a three judge céurt 5 8 b — —U - * 2 tainable as a class Action, with Points and ; Gasch, J. Affidavit of Paul Merlin fled aes | = . Defendant 8 opposition to motions for pre- ary injunction and for convening a at three-judge court and defendant 8 motion June 23 ‘Plaintiff's. iis to 1 8 opposition, plaintiff’s Opposition to defendants motion to disinisg and plaintiff’s oross- motion for mar- judgment, with statement of f mate- 1 July 2. rial tacts, e to n 's state- ment of material facts, affidavits, and points and authorities, filed Request by Gasch, J. to the Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, for the . designation of a panel of three judges Designation by Wright, Acting Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals, of Robb, C. J., Matthews, Sen. D.J., and Gasch, D.J. as the panel to hear and determine the matter . Motion of John Dillard Atkins, J r. for leave to intervene as party plaintiff, with points and authorities, complaint, attachments and affidavits, filed Defendant’s opposition to motion for leave to intervene and to plaintiff’s motion for certification of action as maintainable as a “class action, filed Order of Gasch, J. granting motion for leave . to intervene as party plaintiff and motion for certification -of action as maintainable as a class action ‘Affidavit of Bernard Popick, in support of defendant’s opposition, filed conducted before Robb, C.J., Mat- Hearing thews, Sen. D. J., and Gasch, D.J.; action Sa SS Ar eo ) Ot Gasth, D. J., concurred in by ae to nnd tt prt ©) 2 * 3 2 Date 5 Filinge— Proceedings 1971 * * in the determination proceed - granting plaintiff s motion for summary judgment and denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment 13 1 March 1 Nefendant’s motion for a stay pending ap- . peal, with points and authorities, filed b March 10 Plaintiff s ition to motion for a stay pending ap with points and authorities, filed : March 12 Plaintiff’s and intervenor plaintiff's notice _ Of appeal from order of February 12, 1971, filed er Defendant’s notice of appeal from order of February 12, 1971, filed March 24 Order of Robb, C. J., Matthews, Sen. D.J * and Gasch, D. J. staying order of February . 12, 1971 pending appeal on the condition , that plaintiff continue to receive social se- curity disability benefits until his eligibility is suspended in accordance with the proce- dures outlined in the January 6, 1971 opin- . ion 0 g No. 70-161 in the United States Supreme Court igi | roe May 11 Appellant, Richardson’s jurisdictional state- ment fle 1 October 12 Order of Court noting probable jurisdiction | and consolidating the case with No. 70-5211 Vo. 70-52M in the United States Supreme Court 4 motion for leave to proceed in forma pau- peris, filed Appellee Richardson’s memorandum in re- sponse filed Appellants’ response to appellee’s memo- randum filed Order of Court noting probable jurisdic- tion, granting appellants -leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and consolidating the case with No. 70-161 In tHe Unrrep Srares Drermor Covrr FOR THE Disreicr or Coll UART and b Ciara Lrrrin Waicxt, on their own behalf and as . next of friend to their Et : 3 infant child CLannxon Epwanp, , and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, { Civil Action No. . ; v. Rozsert H. Frxon, individually and in his capacity as Secretary of Health, Education and Wel- fare, „ Defendant. COMPLAINT (Request for Three-Judge Court)’ 1 i versy exceeds the sum of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. — 1 sane This is an appropriate case for the convening of a three. . | * * 6 judge court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2282 and 2284, in that plaintiffs seek an injunction against the enforcement, operation and execution of Acts of Congress, 42 U.S. C. Sees. 425, 405 (b), 421 (a] and 421 (d) (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), insofar as these statutes - benefits prior to granting adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, on grounds of their repugnance. to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 2 IV This action seeks an injunction and declaratory judgment declaring unconstitutional and restraining the enforcement of the aforesaid Acts of Congress, on their face and as ap- = _ plied and interpreted by defendant, on the grounds that said statutes, and actions taken pursuant thereto, deny to plaintiffs due process of law guaranteed by the Fifth of the grounds of termination of their Disability Insurance benefits, and deny to plaintiffs an opportunity for a fair 7 9592 V N N Plaintiff Radie Wright is an adult citizen of the United States and has been a resident of the District of Columbia since 1950. Plaintiff Clara Little Wright has been married to plaintiff Radie Wright for 21 years. Plaintiff Clarence Edward Wright, age 17, is the minor child of Radie and Clara Wright and has lived with them at their residence located at 1249 Half Street, S. W., Washington, D.C. 7 Plaintiff Radie Wright has a history of physical disability I cirrhosis, osteroarithritis of the knees, gastritis with Laennec’s cirrhosis, hypercholesterol anemia, decompensated cirrhosis, ic hermatemsis and he- patic mpensati He applied for Social Security and in 1966 on the basis of a determination, pursuant 42 US.C. See. 423(d)(1)(A of his ‘‘inability to engage * 5 41 0 de a. oo -~ —979—ç—vtĩ . . — — - “ through September 1969, and $162.24 from Oetober threum 6110,10 per month and. * — began, to. receive Disability ‘Insurance, benefits of 650. 20 r ‘benefits, I also applied for benefits for my son _ Clarence Edward Wright. I newer was payee for these ** The 8 : 1 5 „ HAH 1217 Hie 00 HAE 1 14 BL 25 itt 1 (Title Omitted in Printing] disability“ pending of “‘whether or not such individual's 7 or until the Secretary believes such ceased’’, as authorized by 42 U.S. C. Section leeren mom Site re bas gol! 6109 Joa? bay wai % agoitaogp ofT (B) . * 1 i i if eh f 6 E 11 defendant Secretary. | ä questions of law and fact unite the claims plaintiffs and all members of the class, as more y described in plaintiff’s attached memorandum and authorities in support of thie motion. alti community of interest in questions of law and Se F H F i : 5 i 2 F 5 2 (4) = act between named plaintiffs and the class assures fair and adequate representation of the class. 3 bers of the class predominate over the questions ‘affeuting (9) Most recipients of Old Age, Survivors D Insurance benefits have very meager ! ial reac unaware of their legal rights and are unable to vie: press their elaimis. Moreover, relegation of their claims to individual litigations would result in an unreasonable mul- tiplicity of suits and « corresponding burden on the onrt. methods for fairly and efficiently the parties’ ights. ‘ i /s/ Leona Yurdin “Eat, ox Washington, D. OC. 20003 /s/ EL. Calvin Golumbie E. Our Goπ mine 36 N Street, 8. . Washington, D. C. 20003 /8/ Edward E. Schwab Epwann — * 4800 Deane Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20019 i 299.4310 ffs» Fé i [Certificate of Service Omitted im Printing] . NW * nns ‘Ave, 0 Ix Tue Unrrep Stites Disrmor Court For Tue Disraict Or CoLumMBIA i 2 Ram P. Waient, et. al, — — 2 n Plaintiiſs, tor 625.00 approved and filed 147 „ tT nin May 19, 1970. a Defendant. By Lemuel Patterson [Filed 14 May, 1970, Bosunr M. Sreanwe, Clerk] Wuenzss the Court has considered plaintiffs’ complaint, motion for a temporary restraining order, and affidavit. in support thereof, motion for a preliminary injunction, and it appears to the Court that plaintiffs Radie P. Wright and Clarence Edward Wright will suffer substantial irrep- arable injuries because of the losses of their sources of income, unless the Court now grants provisional relief pending a hearing and determination of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, it is hereby: a, 1. Orban that the defendant Secre Robert H. Finch, his agents and employees shall not put into effect or enforce the provisions of 42 U.S.C. Sections 425, 405 (b), 421 (a) and 421 (d) insofar as they authorize or require the def end- A “hs . 12 * 2 iy fending Bering od dender of init * mate dor a preliminary eee Ww per r N rn /e/ Oliver Gasch hei on Tu. Se for the ‘District of C 7 bia 2 DATE: May. , 1970 ahi 0 bay . j os 5 4 i 999 ; Ate ° Plaintiff shall give’ sdeurity: in ie eimn’e6:tireslyldivs dollars ($25.00) for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is fund to . e wrongtully exjelnéa or eee LEHI 1 2 A R COPY. [Title Omitted in Printing ra OF PAUL MERLIN. big n ee p00 00800 8 hes DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA * 1 eta A, Paul Merlin, being first (1) I am Chief of: Litigation, Social Security Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health, Edu- cation and Welfare. | 2 65 eiu (2) In connection with the above captioned action I contacted this day by telephone Carl E. Spitler, Division of Management and Appraisal, Bureau of Disability Insur- ance, Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in Baltimore, Maryland, who advised me as follows: , | (a) In 1969 there were approximately 40,000 cessations of disability under Title II of the Social Security Act. (pb) The average monthly benefits paid to disabled workers and their families amounted to approximately $250.00 per month per family. (e) After initial determination, requests for recon- sideration are processed in approximately 60 days. (d) After reconsideration determinations requests for hearing are processed in 60 to 90 days. a (e) Based upon the foregoing estimates, I have been advised. if the, Administration would have had to pay ts to disabled workers. and their families after a suspension or initial determination of cessation until the administrative hearing was held, the cost to the Social Security Trust Fund would have been $10,060,000 per month or $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 4 7s, Paul Merlin 1 . itt nr. Paul Mean Subeoribed and sworn to before me this 14th day of May, /s/ Jeanne M. Swanson - Notary Public duly sworn, depose and say as Matyi s endant, by his attorney, the United States Attorney - for the District of Columbia, opposes plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and application for convening a three-judge. Court and respectfully moves the Court: to dismiss this cause for lack of jurisdiction over the.subject matter. In the alternative, defendant moves the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor, on the ground there is no genuine issue of material fact and defendant is en- * titled to judgment as a matter of law. 5 . - In support of the motion for summary judgment, de- fendant files herewith the affidavit of Samuel E. eh, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Disability Insurance of the Social Security Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Defendant also incorporates by reference the affidavit of Paul Merlin, Chief of Litigation, Social Security Division, Office of the General ; Department of Health, Education and Welfare, previously filed with the Court. Nn it. benet (a. se: Ninel Tons A. FLANNERY | , | United States Attorney / Josep M:Hannow ie Assistant United States "Attorney | Je, FERS gp Mk Lawrence S. Mancous” : re Assistant United States Attorney OF COUNSEL * Paul Merlin 1 Chief of Litigation Social Security Division | eae Office of the General Counsel a as ave Department of Health’ 9 6 nce Siam sing _ Education and Welfare HisN huber [Certificate of Servick Omitted in Printing] : a | (Pitt Omitted in Printing] | WRATEMEWT OF MATERIAL PACTS. , runner TO LOOAL BULE 9(h) 3 8 sae ne e sents inene | are stated in the affidavit of Samuel Deputy Director of the Burean of — Security Administration, Department int Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, and the affidavit of Paul Merlin, Chief: of Litigation, Social Security Division, Office of the General Counsel, Department of Health, men and Welfare Nee an e , i Tuomas A. FLANNERY Dnited States Attorney 2 M. 8 ye Assistant United States anner 5 gi 4 | : | * e eee . 5 Assistant United States Attorney ob COUNSEL: ee Paul Moxie „ Boda i! Lees 5 STATE OF: MARYLAND . ei, wen i, dend n Crowe, bent daly worm depose and say 3 reau of | Insurance of the Social Security Administrati the responsible for administer. ing the Disability Insurance Program. {a ‘contioetion ‘with ere NO condition. He was unsur. as to when his disability had begun and listed 1964 or 1965. In Item 21 of the application, he agreed to notify the Social Security A tion : work, or he applied for workmen’s compensatio: benefits. (3) Tr — e Tne 11 further — — ning Disability ay in a Report admitted ince the estab- ivity Report had been employed „ the plaintiff’s any employ representative from very few details of the plaintiff’s Accordingly 155 98 1173 Hi 4 i n A 4728 2 } Hit “ll fine i tee inl 1 tt prevented the claims — Aung e EE te e a i 10 1221713 1 1 0 5 110 1 1 ate tf if S5 a alt 1 H 72415 e 1115. Ea HUEY .! piqqii gi pat ote il. 8 cei u g int it i tt 1 e La lie a a id | eae fae! fli nits nilinh hj i J SW) te dle . sd eee, N Tal vill 4 * ai. inne Bureau of * .d 1A Sende M. Cebu Bag nid , 2 a, 634: e l Bony shag gait si: Dee Director ons cs nn bes; oh Wi et: i ele Subscribed and sworn to before yh AL) brett is; Vode 9 „ renn 1 Haft run IU Notary Public WP JAI My Commision expires Jay 1170 ’ et Jaf . ' * — KX 7 * > ; 7 * * f ‘ 45 72 * 1 * 1 4 1 7 bo ; ; * 0 4 * ‘ ¢ _** . Pint * : 5 >" ax 7 at “Zz * 7 . I 54 ri 1 boraianin: wrt item aati vod enen * +1 1 22 4 a soy ; art 1 * 11 ’ » Ef g 4 4 + N * * — [Tithe Omitted im Printing) uine issue, for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that there is no genuine issye as to any material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As part of thi ion, Plaintiff adopts, and by reference incorporates he his memorandum in support of motion for preliminary injunction as well as his memorandum of points and authorities in support of application for a three-judge court, previously filed with this Court. 544-5000 /s/ E. Calvin Golumbic E. Catvix Gotvmaic 36 N Street, S.E. Washington, D.C. 544-5000 /s/ Edward E. Schwab Epwakp Scnwan or Deane W N. E. 399-4310 2 Attorneys for Plaintiff . (Certificate of Service Omitted im Printing] 42 Plaintiff horel Bule 9(h) of the to which there 1 (Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing] [ Pitie Omitted in Printing} PLAINTIFF'S OFPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IM SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR | SUMMARY JUDGMENT ; Plaintifl, betet enlenedl, Megcby oppose im good faith FFP Paul Merlin, Chief of Litigation, Social Security Division, Office of the General Counsél, Department of Health, Education and Welfare (previously filed with the Court), specifically touted in paragzaph (3) (0) thereot ; /s/ Leona Turdin Laon Tun a 36 N Street, S. E. Washington, D. C. 544-5000 : /s/ E. Calvin Golumbic - E. Caim Goitvumsic 36 N Street, S. E. Washington, D.C. 5445000 /s/ Edward E. Schwab : EDWẽ Ian SouwsaB 4300 Deane Avenue, N. E. r A : 1 2 Plaintiff loo. = Service Omitted im Printing) aa tHe pease (Om, Ae ne it AEFIDANITIN SUPPROBT OF MOTION FORM 6): we PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION | + n 1 .be d rei! i a W MUHA TAGS ae in e Diss) : ; ; . ( ; * J. Clara’ Little Wright, being duly sworn, depose and 1 enn EU TOUS) munen raised in Wadesboro, North Carolina and completed the _ 10th grade in public school. I began doing farm work when have lived together since that ti 3. Since the date my marriage I have not had a regular job, either full time or part time. I am an out-patient at the periods and not to do heavy lifting or any strenuous work. Consequently, I have not been able to be employed. 75 4. My clothing primarily consists of about four nice dresses, worn to attend church services, two or three house- work dresses, one skirt and blouse purchased for Easter of 5. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the facts stated by my husband in his affidavit and supple. "mentary affidavit in support of his motions for a temporary . „ — hii anita GAT 72 5 46 teow — N 0 anes — — Nell ‘tang onder ese ae en a. N 1 4 | e, Clara Little Wright PT NG Ath eR ieee a Clan. Lrrrin WIoRT Surschinnb axp Swonx To bare me this 15 day of June | William T. Matthews Notary Public My commission expires Wi T. Matthews Notary Public D. C. My Commission Expires Sept. 14, 1971 [idle Omitted in Printing] SUPPLEMENT TO AFFIDAVIT OF RADIE v. WRIGHT Iw SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION © I, Radie P. Wright, being duly sworn, depose and say the following as a supplement to the affidavit previously sub- mitted in support of my motions for a temporary restrain- ing order and a imi injunction : rn 4 1. Since May 1966 when -I became entitled to Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, I have never under- stood that if I worked I might lose my disability insurance®@ benefits. From television and radio news annotincements my understanding has been that President Nixon had authorized all recipients of Federal Government. benefits to work while they continued to receive their benefits. I worked because my family needed more money to buy the necessaries of life. My employments have caused me great . physical discomfort and have worsened my state of health. I é stopped working because I became too sick to continue. Had I known that working would endanger my continued receipt of disability insurance benefits, I would not have, sought employments. . I promptly complied with a request sent to me by the Social Security Administration asking that I speak with a claims representative about my disabled condition. As I stated in my affidavit filed in suport of my motions for ‘a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, I reported to the claims’ representative that I had not worked since December 1969 because of my very poor physi- cal condition, I also stated where I had worked and described the nature of that work. The claims representa- tive did not inform me that my work would cause me to lose my disability benefits. The claims representative explained that the Social Security Administration was simply inves- tigating my condition. I was not told not to work, but have been unable: to seek employment because of my disability, 2. On May 28, 1963, my youngest son Clarence Edward Wright became a ward of the District of Columbia Depart- ment of Public Welfare. Under order of the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia, he was sent to the Mapel Glen facility in the District of Columbia Children’s Center in Laurel, Maryland. He remained there two years and on 41d : Len. Re scr 1070 bli ol ln al e ‘Tiving with me. and my wife Clara at our home. However, laren takes medication daily and must make visits to Saint Elizabeth’s. We have been informed that he can remain with us as n visitor for one month. Thereafter, if the ent of Public Welfare determines’ his. home and community adjustment has been good, he may be permitted | to remain with us indefinitely. c 3. Since May 1, 1970, when my Social Security Disability benefits were terminated, my wife, my family and I have suffered from not having any income with which to buy the necessities of life. Our daily diet for the month of May primarily consisted of beans, white potatoes, cab „some other. greens, and some cold cereal. We quickly e austed . - our small supply. of milk, butter, meat, cheese and other high protein foods. en we had income from my Social RBecurity Disability Insurance, we eat chicken, beef stew, pork, | milk oe ge green vegetables. Because of mx Gabe! liver other weaknesses, my doctors have urged me to eat foods. everyday, Since we have no money, I have been unable ta. follow my doctors’ recommendations and con- sequently have worsened my physical condition. The poor diet we have been co ned to maintain has also caused a worsening of my Claras physical e en eon. N hatin! part time in 3 W wah and. 2 he i is 0 to a 5 KKK one pair ol old Appen three old. short-sleeved white eggs, meat and high protein ; 15 om oF 4 one 7. in son Clarenos s ‘ticles bad hae field tr 1775 * oo * a hy N ~~ — * he ~, 1 5 * 1 7 — 8 1 f 1 1 " : * 81 . 1 A 1 „ 8 UF eee * » 1 gy N 8 1 2 7 2 MEX od — > * * 2 1 8 i 21 “ 15 io . * — 1 « 1 vont * 1 21 N . "Ba * * 7 * 5 * Ane * 8 5 7 5 0 3 * * ii 25 5 Po wide 4 “ . 1 47 1 A — 49 ‘ 2 * * ae ro er 5 * 2 * 8 4 5 8 7 8 5 aa * N 9 ya * ‘ : * é 1 72 a . — te N . * . 1 W ‘ . ee ö — farnitare 1% out wy two tresses, one small clothes bureau, three clothing ing old sofas, about five chairs, one old second-hand te i = two inexpensive radios, two old small ee a. second-hand kitchen table with second-hand ¢ We have two waste paper baskets, and very few d 3, pots and pans. Our linen supply consists of a six towels, four sheets, two pillows and four pillow cases. We have 1 +e 8 decent rugs, no lamps and no work or coffee tables. tal, ‘Badie P. weet Rm F a 7 — 237 ..Weicnt .- a —— AND Sonn TO before me this lit ay ot June: ee W gg Sali Af Marlin BA on Notary | FON, My commission expires: Notary en DG: rey e, t eae Oe vit 3 i My commission expires July 14, 1973... e 0 4 ; ws din ä ; 0 ta . 5 _lCertifete of ame op. ei [Title Omitted im Printing] SUPPLEMENT TO AFFIDAVITS OF nahm ?. WRIGHT IN SUPPORT , OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I, Radie P? Wright, bei ‘duly sworn, depose and say the following as a supplem mint to the affidavits previously submitted in support of my motions for a temporary re- straining order and a preliminary injunction: 1. Since the fall of 1965, when I suffered a ber dane and was admitted to Freedman s Hospital in the District of Columbia, I have been consistently- advised by my con- sulting physicians that I should not work because of a severe permanent disability. 2. Only recently I requested an opinion in that respect, through my counsel, from Emerson A. Williams, M.D., my present consulting physician, and he advised by letter-to Miss Leona Yurdin dated June 23, 1970 (attached hereto) that I am still ase a aa due to my present physical condition. /s/ Radie P. Wicht Rab P. Waicur 8 anp Sworn To before me this 30th day of July 1970. /s/ Martin L. Casto Notary Public My commission expires: July 14, 1973 | [Certificate of Serwice Omitted in Printing 9 1 — 2 * * * . 5 — ‘ „ . [Title Omitted im Printing] MOTION FOR LEAVE 20 FILE QOMPLADIT m irrERvENTION : AND TO JOIN AS PARTY PLAINTIFF Applicant tor a ohn Dillard Atkins, Jr., by f his counsel, respectfully moves this Court for leave to file : a complaint in intervention and to join as party plaintiff in the akove-Captioned action, and in Sepport thereof states as follow: 1. Applicant 8 complaint i in interv and affidavit i in support thereof, attached hereto, as the facts upon which his claim is based. | 2. Applicant’s claim and prayer for relief are parallel | to those set forth in the cause presented to the Court by: the Plaintiff Radie Wright. 3. Applicant is a member of a class in which all * have been found entitled to receive Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 401-429, and who face preemptory, ex parte suspension or termination of their payments upon an administrative determination of ineligi- bility, prior to being afforded an opportunity for an eviden- tiary hearing, pursuant to 42 U.S.C, Sections 405 (b), 4421 (a), 421 (d) and 425, in violation of rights guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 4 4. It is in the applicant’s interest, and that of the Court, to have the issue of 295 of the Social Seourit Sections 205(b),. 7 221(a), 221(d) and 225 of the Social ity Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 405(b), 421(a), 421(d) and 425), insofar as they authorize or require the defendant Secretary to terminate Social Security Disability Insurance benefit payments with- out adequate notice and prior opportunity for a fair hear: ing, decided so as to avoid further confusion and repetitious litigation. * 5. Applicant submits that no . to the parties 52 53 would result thrpngh ‘this his Cnt ring nr le complaint in intervention: at this time. We E. Calvin Gotuinbig E. Gatvis Grun 36 N Street, S. E. e * 2 e, Edward E. Schwab r Ewan Scuwas’ 4 4300 Deane Avenue, N.E. 1. Washington, D.C. Ae for Applicant — | [Certificate of Service Omitted in et [Title Omitted in Printing] | COMPLAINT IN VENTION ron DECLARATORY | ' JUDGMENT AND INJUNOTIVE RELIEF = (Request for Three-Judge Court) | ae : | This is a complaint in intervention seeking deelaratory injunctive relief to protect applicant-for-intervention, John Dillard Atkins,, Jr.’s rights under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 401 et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder, and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the Unitec States, including the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and 42 U. S. C. Sections 402 (d) and 423. a II Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 11 D.C. Code, Section 521 (1967 ed.) and 28 U.S. C. Sections 1331, 1343 (4), 1361, 2201, 2282, and 2284. The amount in con- troversy exceeds the sum of $10,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. | sigh aalinga | This an appropriate case for the convening of a three- judge court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 2282 and 2284, in that the applicant-for-intervention seeks an injunction against the enforcement, operation and execution. of Acts of Congress, 42 U.S.C. Sections 425, 405(b), 421(a) and 421(d) (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), insofar as these statutes authorize or require suspension on . termination of financial benefits prior to granting adequate notice.and opportunity to,be heard, on grounds of their repugnance to the due procéss clause of the. Fifth Amend- ment to the Constitution of the United States. This action seeks an injunction and declaratory judgment declaring unconstitutional and restraining the enforcement I 54 7 g 1 . ° * — 8 4 - ; e of the aforesaid. Acts of Congress, on their face and as applied and interpreted by defendant, on the grounds that said statutes, and actions taken pursuant thereto, deny to the applicant. for- intervention due process of law 5 tged by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con- stitution, in that said statutes deny to the applicant-for- intervention reasonable and adequate notice of the grounds of suspension or termination of his Disability Insurance benefits, and deny to the applicant-for-intervention an opportunity for a fair and proper evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of his Disability Insurance benefits. Applicant, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., is an adult citizen of the United States and has been a domiciliary resident of the State of Virginia since 1945: Applicant, John Dillard : Atkins, Jr., has been married to Martha Ruth Atkins for 28 years and they have two adult children presently mar- ried and living elsewhere. Applicant’s~-domiciliary resid- ence is located at 2546 Military Road, Arlington, Virginia, where his wife currently resides. Applicant resides at present in the Veterans Nuministration lodge as a mental patient of the Veterans Administration Hospital in Salem, Virginia, where he has been hospitalized continuously from January 18, 1969 and as a resident of the lodge since July 18. ee ö * — Wi | Ape Applicant, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., has a history pf men- tal disorder · and was admitted to the Veterans Administra- tion Hospital in Perry Point, Md. in December 1966 under a psychiatric diagnosis of extreme depression and has remained under psychiatric care continuously until the present time. He applied for social security disability bene- fits in December 1966 and was awarded disability benefits : in July 1967, after a six month initial waiting period, on the bais of a determination, pursuant to 42 U.S. C. ions 423 (d) (1) (A), of his ‘‘inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of (a) medicallydeterminable , physical or mental impairment. which can he expected to result in death or. which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months.“ — * \ > 2 56 ; A ben nt is ‘a member of a class in which all members { tj a) ’ Ap 1 i ' | J TE. AE rc} have been found entitled to receive Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Tnsurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C. Sections 401-429. All of the mem- bers of this class face peremptory, ex parte termination of their payments upon an administrative determination of ineligibility prior to being afforded an opportunity for an ~ evidentiary hearing. The authority to terminate payment and then grant an opportunity for a hearing is granted by 42 U.S.C, Sections 405 (b), 421(a), and 421(d), and is in violation of rights guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A substantial portion of this class, including the named applicant, face pe remptory, ex parte suspension of benefits if the defendant. believes they may have ceased to be under a disability“, pending his determination of whether ‘‘disability has ceaged or - | until the Secretary believes that such disability had not ceased’’ as authorized by 42 U.S. C. Section 425. Applicant brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of himself and all persons ' constituting the above class who are similarly situated. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical; there are questions, of law or fact common. to the class; the claims of the representative par- ties are typical of the class; and the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The prosecution of separate actions by or against individual members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect. to individual members of the class; adjudications with respect to individual mem- bers of the class.would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of other members not parties to the adjudications; the questions of law and fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only in- dividual members; and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. viii, NINA GHH H, oie Aline oni vill * Defendant Robert H. Finch is the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and, as such, is charged with the a. | 87 | administration of Title II of the Social Securi Act, 42 8 Applicant, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., began part ti employment at 14 years of age for the Atlantic and Pacific | ‘Tea Company. In 1934, at age 18, he began full time em- ployment with the Civilian Conservation Corps and worked in that capacity until August 1936. At that time he enrolled at North Carolina State College at Raleigh, North Carolina and graduated with a Bachelors Degree in June 1940. - Applicant entered the Marine Corps in July 1940 as a com- missioned officer (second lieutenant). He remained on active status with the Marine Corps until April 1945. He. did retire in 1943 because of a physical disability, but remained on active duty until 1945. The disability was diagnosed, at the Norfolk Naval Hospital in Portsmouth, Virginia, as being psychiatric in nature and was apparently the same or a related disability to that which he is now suf- fering. In July 1945, applicant began working for the’ Virginia Forrest Service and continued that employment. until April 1947. In September 1947, applicant commenced teaching (mathematics) at a high school in Aldie, Virginia. He completed the school year in June 1948 and at that time commenced a Masters degree program at George Washing- ton University. The George Washington University awarded a Master of Arts degree in education in 1949. In September 1949, applicant, John Dillard Atkins, J fs hoges working in the Arlington County School system as a er and continued employment in that capacity until December 1966. In the spring of 1966, applicant voluntarily entered Bethesda Naval Hospital in the Neuro- psychiatrie ward for approximately three months. In the fall 6f 1966, he began teaching again in Arlington County and continued until December. 1966 whereupon he completed his last employ- ment in any capacity whatsoever. . 1. ; J } 5 g 1 x AE i Applicant,’ John Dillard Atkins, Jr. left hi teaching Position with the Arlington County School system in Des- 4 2 hee ee Sr ae 5 i - ember 1966 in order to enter the Veterans Administration (mental) Hospital at Perry Point, Maryland because of *: severe psychiatric: problems. He remained at the hospital in Perry Point until January 7, 1969. On J anuary 8, 1969, applicant was committed by the Arlington’ County Court, Judge. Dodge, to the Western State Hospital in Staunton, , Virginia and later transferred, on J anuary 18, 1969, to the Veterans Administration Hospital in Salem, Virginia, where he has been continuously and is still a patient at this time. On April 10, 1967, applicant’s physician at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Perry Point, Mary- land, diagnosed him as essentially totally and permanentiy „disabled. This diagnosis was confirmed by letter to the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System dated April 10, 1967. The prognosis was, in part, that: It) is highly unlikely that he can ever reintegrate to a level that would qualify him to return to active teaching. It is even inconsiderably at this time that the patient will ever be able to make a responsible social adjustment living outside of the peychiatric hos- pital. * — 1 N N 4 See Exhibit A attached hereto. This | romaéele was made on the basis of continuous psychiatrié bal ment at the Perry Point Veterans Administration Hospital for approximately one year and a half (December 1966 until April 1967). - Due to applicant’s mental condition from December (1966 until the present, all of which time he has been institu- tionalized as a mental patient, it has been impossible for him to continue employment as a teacher or in any other capacity. In December 1966 applicant applied for ‘social security disability benefits and was awarded disability ~ benefits in July E afte a six month initial waiting Period 8 Ki : or. GC a? 4 XI * _ Applicant, J ohn Dillard Atkins, Jr., continued to receive ‘social security disability benefits from July 1967 until February 3, 1970 when he received a letter of that date - from the Social Security ee advising ance | pertinent part, that: 4 The medical evidence in your case iphowe that your . @ 59 5 Ae he 28 able to do substantial gainful work in January 1970. * ‘Accordingly, the last disability benefit to which you are entitled is for the month of March 1970. 5 Exhibit B 5 hereto. 2 , II wi, On. February 4, 1970, (one day after receipt of the letter o termination), applicant, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., di- rected a letter to the Social Security Administration advis- condition has improved to the xg that you became ‘ > ing them that, contrary to their assertion that he was able to do. substantia) gainful work in January 1970, hi a date of gainful employment was December 13, 1 that he is now and has continuously been a patient at "he Veterans Hospital in Salem, Virginia sjnce January 16, 1969. He further advised that: I h a 2 charged from that hospital:’’ See Exhibit C attached hereto. On the day after recipt of the’letter terminating ap icant’s social security benefits; February 4, 1970, a phlicant’ wife contacted the office of Congressman Joel T. Broyhill, — es- questing some form of help. In response to her requ never been Ae. Congressman. Broyhill: sent a telegram on February x 1970 to the Social Security Administration advising them that the applicant was totally disabled and requesting that his office be informed concerning the applicant’s status. Ex- hibit D attached hereto. Furthermore, shortly after ‘receiv- ing the letter of termination dated February 4, 1970, ap- plicant’ s wife telephoned the Social Security Administra- tion in three different. instances. In each instance ‘she talked to a different person. On the last occasion, she e- . plained to Commissioner Ball’s Assistant that if she and her husband (applicant herein) did not know if there was a ot Ae any chance of reinstatement or even reconsideration by 2 ' April 1, 1970, it would be necessary to sell their home. : Thereafter, ‘applicant and his wife directed approximately ten letters to the Social Security Administration requesting information in regard to applicant’ s status. and whether he would be reinstated or even receive a reconsideration by April 1, 1970, without.even receiving any response or re- - ply by the Administration other than a letter to Congress- man Broyhill’s office advising that applicant's termination Was under investigation, but failing to comment on whether £ A ae or not a decision would be reached eee een ee a * / II On Arn 25 1970, the Social Security Administration ad- vised Congressmen "Broyhill by telegram that they had de- termined that applicant, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., was still ae en ee Exhibit E attached reto A tion Hospital, Salem, Virginia, residing in the Veterans Administration lodge as a mental patient. XV * Nevertheless, e was forced to undergo the severe mental strain of fearing the imminent termination of his reviewed by that time. \ XVI , on April 30, 1970, applicant received a letter from the Social Security Administration, dated April-29, 1970 (six , Congreagan Broyail ytelogra), cht hat: a It appears that, on the basis. of past experience, applicant . can look forward, at that tithe te the prertert f png, possible termination (or ending investigation) The consequences of the Soci Security Administration’s determination to terminate applicant ’s disability benefits by monthly income consiats of statutory benefits received from social security, V.A. compensation and Virginia State re- tirement. The prospective loss of his social security benefits would have seriously impaired his ability to maintain his current obligations. Consequently, his wife took a third trust on their house on March 17, 1970, and later sold their home on April 5, 1970. Exhibit G attached hereto, a» 7, ae illness (the last 34 years), it appears that there is little chance of applicant being able to assume gainful employ- his wife suff ere mental anguish and immediate, con- tinuing and i rable injury to their health. 62 pendents. Persons who meet the statutory criteria (42 U.S.C. Sections 402(d) and 423), as interpreted in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare regula- tions, receive disability insurance payments as a matter of statutory entitlement. | XXI Defendant’s preemptory, ex parte action suspending or terminating applicant’s social security disability insurance benefits violates’ the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that it effectively suspended or terminated and withheld benefits essential to life itself without affording applicant, John . Dillard Atkins, Jr., reasonable and adequate notice as well as an opportunity for a prior fair hearing. * XXII Sections 205 (b), 221 (a), 221 (d) and 225 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C: Sections 405 (b), 421(a), 421(d) and 425 are invalid and repugnant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con- stitution insofar as they authorize or require the defendant Secretary to take preemptory, ex parte action suspending or terminating benefits without affording reasonable and ade- quate notice and an opportunity for a prior fair hearing. ‘Wuenerorz, applicant-for-intervention respectfully prays that this Court: | 1. Assume jurisdiction of this case ; pcan. 2. Convene a three-judge Court to hear this cause; 3. Enter a Preliminary and Permanent Injunction (A) restraining the operation and enforcement of 42 U.S. C. Sec- tions 405 (b), 421 (a), 421 (d) and 425 insofar as they author- ize or require the defendant Secretary to put into effect the suspension or termination of social security disability in- surance benefits to applicant, and (B) requiring the de- fendant Secretary to continue benefit payments to applicant until notice and opportunity for a hearing meeting Due Process standards are afforded ; 63 — insurance benefits payments without adequate. notice and prior opportunity for a fair hearing: ize tf 7 ae 5. Certify applicant and those who are similarly situated as a class; pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in respect to all rights and liabilities involved in this action; 6. Declare the other rights and relations of the parties 8 2 g 7. Award Costs to applicant; and , 15 8. Enter such other further relief as the Court may deem , just and appropriate. ay /8/ John Dillard Atkins, Jr. Jonx Dnunůd Arxixs, Jr. Js, Leona Yurdin Lzona Yurprx 36 N Street, S. E. Washington, D.C. 20003 544-5000 Js, E. Calvin Golumbic E. Cal y Gotumsic 2 36 N Street, S.E. ’ Washington, D.C. 20003 /s/ Edward E. Schwab: Epwarp Scuwas 399-4310 — ae eee Attorneys for applicant for Intervention DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ss: | I, John Dillard Atkins, Jr., being first duly sworn on oath, depose and say that I have read the foregoing com- plaint in intervention by me subscribed and that the facts stated therein are true to the best of my knowledge, in- formation and belief. /s/ John D. Atkins, Jr. ' Joun D. Arms, In. Susscarsp AND Sworn To before me this 16th day of June 1970. | /s/ Dorothy R. Cox ‘Notary Public My commission expires: March 25, 1973. [Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing) — % . 44 16 714 . lg ' * uf * r , ~ * An; Hit, 4 N 1 ae su “ae? * * 9 n Af - tn a 2 1 ** N ey NIT oi 1 75 . * j * “ 1 | 4. pre os * ' awe 1 „neee ‘ > 22 * . * 4 759. 1 6 - ott wads ws. o' . 1 , / 1 eter mb Whe Wee a E : 1.5 . - 4 e * vie bus u. i " ‘Naps bie FLU vale e We hee A ne vei et eee One ee re VL 5 aoe — ¢ be : 122 i e 7 1 te ir mr 11. El ae 11 13 ERS 3313 33 * Ee aoe HEEL 2 5 1 24434212 — 3 j a 2 3 1117 iti 533 | 13 a3 ta HH sully ¢.. 1 8 in com- his ‘‘claim . . and the a question of cr fact R4 J have n be not * ten 5 nye 12 43 11731 0 He! Le ii 11 it 1161 111 1 laaae : 115 ie 1112 113 : ‘ : 1 ee es Ty th . 8 + amas J class. Plaintiff and applicant have not met the of a class action. Rule 23(a),F BCiw.P. «0 . For the f reasons applicant’s — 8 vene as a and the motions of plaintiff and ap enn eines Setion shove nan a Urin Statss Distaicr Cour Fon Tun Disraicr or Column PESO UA Kev dh A hiv 4 Sia Ss Base J l oy. —— un 1 Action F. RF. RoszatH.Fixcn, 0. 1457-70 “ [Filed, Ang A, 170 Rosser M. Sreaans, Clerk] shes op est a. Ze : ’ Upon consideration of the motion of John D. Atkins for leave to intervene as party-plaintiff and upon further | considetation of the application. of plaintiff Radie. P. NENA unger Rule 23(b) (2), Fed. R. Civ. P., it is by the Court this 21st day of August, 1970. r 23 for te to intervene be 2 400 and under provisions 24 (b), and ii farben Onpznzp that the of plaintiff Radie P. Wright that the action be as a class action be and. the same hereby is ted under the ee of Rule e, 25 /s/ Oliver Gasch Judge 17 ; . : * Me [Title Omittedin’ Printing) | : Sh OB eed —— STATE r OF BaL Tinea as ; | COUNTY OF BALTIMORE: thee gota Be Director of the an Nan een eal Security Administration. In my official capacity I have and ae * Health, Education, and Welfare, pursuant, to Title 42, United Statoe Code; section 106 14 py fe | 4% Lectioß 205(a) of the Social Security „Ast, ne ey . 42 U. S. C. A., section 405 (a) Provides that: Aco: wee, Seotion 421 (a), provides in pertinent part: a) In the case of any individual, the determination oF tether or not he is under 3 disability 2 * * and 2 oY tre No..4, se- tion 20 C.F.B. 1527, promulgated by the Secretary parvsant te the statutory authority of seation 205(a) of the 7 ate b) He engages in any work activity or there is un 0 * : 2 ˙ tivity ob his iraingy 1961 , 5 E „ . 4 — 4 7 K 1 <> + 4 * ef: jor rh ite. 4 SA tht oa Te) * 7 K. has been in 4 hospital dr dima, snd is dlocharged ene #8 nn Social ry rity" ene, 3 E a 4 Magis, i tion 404.1089, 20 C. F. R. 441855 Provides ao 2 & part: such severity as to prevent him from 3 substantial gainfal activity or, in the ease of dtoabine %) The month in which the fan. | rar sy, his ability to engage in beten aay oat ge to til in I 1 51 : ties comparable to those of some e in 5 i 3 E : 5 i of E 90 Monthly ‘benefits were malled to John D. Atkins, Ir. at the VA al; Perry Point, Maryland where Mr. Atkins was 1 Mr. Atkins was advised at the time ability benefits. Hf W wat set st CT See Bt, oe (2) In September 1969, when John Atkins’ August, 1969 benefit check was returned from the Perry Point Hospital as undeliverable, the Administration began a continuing disability investigation in ‘accordance with Social Security. Regulations No. 4, section 404.1528, supra. This investiga- tion was conducted by the Towson, Maryland Social Se- gurity Office. At that time the disability claim folder (i.e. a folder containing all pertinent documents on an given social security claim) was forwarded by the Social Security Administration Bureau of Disability Insurance, Baltimore, d, to the Towson, Maryland District Office. The Perry Point Hospital advised the Administration that Mr. Atkins had been discharged January 7, 1969. On October 30, 1969 Mr. Atkins’ wife advised that Mr. Atkins was a patient at the VA Hospital in Salem, Virginia but living as an out- patient with seven other patients at 542 S. W. Walnut Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. : . 3) oa (3) A Social Security Administration representative in. terviewed Mr. Atkins on November 7, 1969. Mr, Atkins told ‘the interviewer that after leaving the Perry Point Hospital on January 7, 1969, he entered the Western State Hospital, Staunton, Virginia, and later entered the VA Hospital in on January 18, 1969. Mr. Atkins further stated that on July 22, 1969 he left the Salem Hospital on ‘trial visit“ status and-currently resided with seven other patients at the Roanoke, Virginia address as part of a therapy and treatment program sponsored by the hospital. At this time Mr. Atkins requested on a standard Social Security Admin- i form used for this purpose, that his checks be mailed to his home address in Arlington, Virginia. -. (4) The Bureau of Disability. Insurance, Baltimor: dence: from the Western State Hospital and the Salem ‘ary 16, 1970 that the January, 1970. This ground speci i : ; * o 41 — ity clair nie BOLI ui. ; OS ty chk“ p sms 92° . : fo-pay the August and September. checks with- folder. The combined checks.were sent to 11, 1959. ai hs OF KER FOR: i ection 228(a) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. a), which des that. entitlement to disability in- th) ee Hy At vy * „nn MN Hh : . DU lings „ bucitacs * 6e! NL — 117 „M „ A GD © OTe , MA nen Senior e Seen udge, nasal Sati 208 é 115 + 1110 i 12112 Ha ieee e e — 45 1413 85 shi Pees ELE EE di eit 1 fiene , 97 P i . without due process of law.' ‘That section ofthe t. _ \ tu FVV determined by the circumstances of the particular | situation, The determination of the appropriateness of the procedures requires balancing the governmental function involved against the private interest af- . fected.” The Court stated the test in Goldberg: “The extent to which procedural due process must be af- forded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be ‘condemned to suffer grievous loss,’ and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary ad judieation.“ In Goldberg, the crucial factor was that “termination of aid pending resolu- tion of a controversy over eligibility may deprive an nae ee ge eter ale ieee As Allnlaenen eb y for Title I and Title IV benefits is based on the ] cris de yr Greene v. Karon. on fact finding, the evi- ? ee een case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue. While „this is important in the case of documentary | evidence, it is even more important where evi- - dence consists of the testimony of individuals whose memory might be faulty or who in fact, might be perjurors or persons. motivated by malice, vindictiveness, intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. We have formalized these proteetions eee examination.“ The evidentiary basis for the determination of eligi- bility for welfare benefits which was considered by the Court in Goldberg in delineating the form of hear- ing required in that case differs from the situation presented here. The regulations of the Social Se- curity Administration provide that disability benefits can be terminated when medical or other evidence indicates that the impairment has ceased or when the individual has engaged in substantial gainful em- ployment. The evidence to support these findings con- ene 1 860 US. 474 (1987). Id, 406 — K pt baring emma; th Contre om it | N 9 - „ „ fundamental due process to the recipient before this 8 ae Dette * * ‘ 60 I am authorized to state pt? 44 Oourt rules on the adequacy of the details of that regula- § 425, since | requires. These regula- hearing before an require that when an initial determination is made that. pplies be notified of the to request reconsideration. 20- C. F. R. § 404.916. These 5 right to s 20 C. F. R. to actions under 42 U.S.C HEF 0 2241115 8 f x 15 lei 8 n the determination a ‘of the basis of the 1 ere eK ‘te re ts i e* Burnita SHELTON MA ; .. United States Senior District Judge. if 1 7 1 * berge 2 71 10 er i AE SS Pursuant to the. opinion filed i in this case on Jan- uary 6, 1971, which opinion is adopted as the Court's | Findings of, Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is by the Court this 12th day of February, 1971. ORDERED that Section 225 of the Social Security Act be and it is hereby declared unconstitutional and void in that it denies recipients procedural due proc- ess in suspension proceedings, and it is further _ . ORDERED that plaintiff Radie Wright continue to receive Social Security Disability benefits until such time as his ‘eligibility is suspended 1 in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Mf eet of Ji an- uarxy 6, 1971, and it is further ¢ _ ORDERED that no Social en Disability ben- eficiary be suspended without being afforded adequate notice and pportunity to partieipate in the de- termination proceedings, and it is further a '_. -. ORDERED that the Social Security Administration ae promulgate regulations governing the suspension of 8 disability benefits to — which shall conform Judgment r 3 Pram to — 4 4 . N 5 1 * ma dh Oe? ° . 4 * K fie . — 141 1 8 vs . — 0 . ö . ; 8 * 7 4 3 4 7 . ; 1 ee * x : « * 1 * 2 * g ; : F . x 8 5 4 5 0 7 et 3 — 2 N ; ® . 3 of 2 4 * — 5 4 . . A z * > > : . » ‘ — : Cy ie 9 * 5 1 — 2 * pe — ; 4 K 5 ‘ 8 2 ‘ 3 * . . — > 5 2 — — > * ‘ * che ; 0 ’ 3 . . / ‘ 2 " „ „ : 7 . « od * : 1 - . , 2 ‘ 3 5 — ‘ 7 » N 3 : . b i . 9 : 3 F 4 * 2 . = $% ie 3 7 “ 5 3 i 3 . . * s : . 3 1 — ‘ * 3 — — . „ : ; 2 4 . 7 * 2 eae ? 2 . oF 7 7 1 * 1 > - : 8 5 ‘ e * . « . ae 9 f > at 11471 : . 7 4 5 , > : * 7 ° r. ae ‘ . . ; 5 . rt * 5 * ; &4 12 3 ‘ a. XI 7 * ‘ > . hs 3 : * - . : 135 1 9 2 8 : * Sts eats rise — 7 4 : if 8 ° 214 + *: 4 ¢ 5 5 1 241 PFs . 21 3 — ’ ry . . . — a s 4 . 5 * . . [Title Omitted in Printing] - be unconstitutional and ordering that no social security disability beneficiary be suspended without bei afforded notice and an opportunity to participate in the appeal therefrom. | pe In support of this motion, the Court, is reapectfully referred to the memorandum filed herewith. * Respectfully submitted, 9 it L. Pararox Garay, III _- Assistant Attorney General . Tomas A. Fianyzry United States Attorney /8/ Hastanp F. Learners Js/ 1 „ Daym Epsrem Attorneys, Department of Justice Attorneys for Defendant ~ 106 ~, * 2 sa [Title Omitted iw Pr ane Se Aa ) Plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorneys, respectfully oppose defendant’s motion to stay the Court’s Order: ‘dated Febraary 12, 1971 pending appeal therefrom. =. oo. Plaintiffs have stated 8 for their — in a memorandum filed herewith, and ‘Teopactfully: refer: the Court to that memorandum. ie ; Respectfully submitted, Js, E. Calvin Golumbie E. Catvix Gotumsic Lawcor Project Institute for Studies in Justice and Social Behavior American University Lay-School Washington, D.C. 20016 686-2630 -- /s/ Edward E. Schwab EDwand E. Scuwas Neighborhood Legal Services Program 36 N Street, S. E. 5 Washington, D. O. 20003 544-5000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs °° . \ “(Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing * 107 true Omitted in Printing) u worten OF APPEAL “Notice i is een given that all plaintiffs and intervenor- /s/ Edward E. Schwab 5 Eo an E. Scuwas Attorney for Plaintiſſs ˖ "+ Neighborhood Legal Service ee 9 : 36 N Street, S. E. Pe | Washington, D.C. 20003 /s/ E. Calvin Golumbic E. Cal ]] Gotumsic Attorney for Plaintiffs . Lawcor Project Institute for Studies in Law and Social Behavior American University Law School Washington, D. C. 20016 686-2630 : . [Certificate of Bervies Omitted in Erintinq 4 108 | 1 ; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 4 1258, from the final order — (Title Omitted | ‘in Printing} | Sonn oF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the defendant ehr appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Stetes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253, from the order of this Court entered February 12, 1971, in favor of the Plaintiffs * e, the defendant. 7 Wer ee e ue Attorney. 3 Assistant F. Bens States Attorney. Certificate of Service Omitted in. Printings: * © 109 S 1— — Louse | : 7 ee Couumsta . 5 51 or Ae A LE ae Rapm wn 1 d., 1 3 ee unf, At neg ˖«ͤ ᷣ𻹠0 N Civil Action No. 1457-70 — H. 192 ap: Face, Dafondant. | wel Mar. 24, 1971, Jas F. Davay, Clerk). 6 Upon consideration of defendant’s motion for stay pend- a a ing appeal andthe opposition thereto, it is by the Court this 24th day of March, 1971, Onpznep that the Order of February 12, 1971, be and it is hereby ‘stayed pending appeal, provided that plaintiff Radie Wright continue to receive Social Security Disability benefits until such time as his eligibility is suspended in accordance with the procedures outlined i in the Opinion of J january 6, 1971. /s/ Roger Robb Circuit Judge: aa Daruite Shelton Matthews ; Senior District Judge „ | / Oliver Gasch District Judge ° * ¢ a 3 — 1 ‘ * i 2 : é ae Nos. 70-161 and 70.5211 of Health, Education and Welfare, oe 2 25 . 5 | ‘Ap ell, i, f ot * 1 : : * n = 5 : é “Bape Want, et al.; and Ram Wahr, et al., . 4 : im Appellants, V. f | ELLxor L. Rronanpsox, etc. N Arraais from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. thy: The statements of jurisdiction in these cases. having been | submitted and considered by the Court, probable juris- diction is noted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. October 12, 1971. is A * u u. 8. Govertiment Printing Office: 1971—448-600/280 — te mmm me EL AF. —— * 3 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_1519%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.