Opposition — Kananen v. Califano

a> tae

| eae Pa UNITED sta COURT OF APPEALS FOR

5 AB CIRCUIT

a ee = ee ee

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

No. 77-300

RICHARD KANANEN, PETITIONER

¥.

JoserpuH A. CALIFANO, JR., SECRETARY

oF HEALTH. EDtCATION AND WELFARE

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RESPONDENT

IN OPPOSITION —

Petitioner seeks review of a decision affirming the re-

duction of his disability insurance benefits, pursuant to

42 U.S.C. (and Supp. V) 424a. because of his receipt of

workmen's compensation benefits.

Petitioner was awarded workmen's compensation bene-

fits for a disability caused by back injuries for a period

beginning October 28, 1967. After he had received weekly

payments for a period of about nine months,' on or about

‘Petitioner received $61.75 per week tor the period from October

28. 1967. to Juiy 26. 1968. in a total amount of $2.408.25. as well

as $1.445.20 for medical expenses. 555 F. 2d at 669. (We refer to the

official report of the decision below because the appendix to the

Petition ws Not paginated and is incomplete.)

(1)

2

July 30. 1968. petitioner entered into a settlement with

the compensation insurance carrier in the amount of

$15.000. Of this amount, $9,884 represented settlement

for weekly compensation. 555 F. 2d at 669.

In 1974. petitioner also was awarded disability in-

surance benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. (and Supp. V)

416(i) and 423 for disability due to mental illness. Pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. (and Supp. V) 424a, petitioner's disability

benefits were reduced because of his receipt of workmen's

compensation benefits. 555 F. 2d at 668-669. Petitioner

challenged the reduction in benefits on the ground that

the statute does not apply to workmen's compensation

benefits awarded for a different disability from that for

which disability benefits were paid. and he also contested

the amount of the offset. 555 F. 2d at 669.

After exhausting his administrative remedies. petitioner

sought review in the district court. which affirmed the

reduction of his benefits (Pet. App. A). The court of ap-

peals affirmed (Pet. App. B).

The court of appeals’ decision is correct and does not

warrant review by this Court.

1. 42 U.S.C. (and Supp. V) 4244 provides in relevant

part that an individual who is entitled to both disability

insurance benefits and workmen's compensation benefits

in any particular month shall have his disability

insurance benefits reduced pursuant to a statutorily

prescribed formula. The Secretary determined. and both

“The reduction is in an amount cyual to the workmen's compensa-

tion benefits received. unless 80 percent of the individual's average

current carnings ts greater than the disability insurance benefits to

which the individual is entitled before reduction. In the latter situa-

tion, disability insurance benelits are to be reduced by the amount

by which the sum of disability insurance benelits plus workmen's

compensation benelits exceeds SO percent of average current

earnings. 42 U.S.C. 424at an 3)4 5).

3

courts below held, that the provisions of 42 U.S.C. (and

Supp. V) 424a apply to petitioner's claim for disability

insurance benefits. notwithstanding the fact that he

received his workmen's compensation benefits as a result

of his back injuries and the cause of his disability for

disability insurance benefits was mental illness. This

interpretation follows the unambiguous language of the

statute. which provides for an offset in the case of any

receipt of periodic benefits for total or partial disability

under state workmen's compensation law. without regard

to the event triggering entitlement under state law. Cf.

Grant \. Weinberger. 482 F. 2d 1290 (C.A. 6).

Moreover. the legislative history supports this interpre-

tation. The offset provided by 42 U.S.C. (and Supp. V)

4244 was enacted to correct a problem created by the

overlap between workmen's compensation programs and

federal disability insurance programs, which in some

cases resulted in the payment of total benefits that

exceeded an employee's pre-disability: take-home pay.

thereby reducing his incentive to return to work and

impeding state rehabilitative programs. Richardson v.

Belcher. 404 U.S. 78, 82-83. In Richardson this Court

therefore held that there is a rational basis for the

classification created by the statute. Contrary to

petitioner's contention (Pet. 4), the application of the

offset provision to his case is not arbitrary. since

Congress’ concerns ate equally applicable whether the

overlap between state and federal benefits is triggered by

the same disability or not.

2. Petitioner also contends (Pet. 3) that the courts

below and the Secretary erred in “completely disregard-

ing” his evidence regarding computation of the offset

and in crediting evidence he had shown to be “tainted.”

The district court found substantial evidence in the record

4

to support the Secretary's findings. however. and the court

of appeals affirmed.* There is no occasion for turther

review of these factual findings.

For the foregoing reasons. it is respectfully submitted

that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

Wapt H. McCree, JR..

Solicitor General.

OcToOBER 1977.

‘Petitioner asserted in the court of appeals that he did not receive

part of the weekly workmen's compensation benefits due from the

compensation insurance carrier. 555 '. 2d at 671 n. 3. The court of

appeals held that petitioner's factual assertion was irrelevant to the

disposition of the case. since the offset provision was applied with

respect only to the lump-sum settlement payment received by peti-

tioner and not to the previously received weekly periodic payments.

thid. Petitioner also contended that the lump-sum payment was not

a substitute for periodic payments. The court of appeals found no

support for this contention in the record. 555 F. 2d at 670-671.

DOJ-1977-10