AR 88-6(8): Levings v. Califano, 604 F.2d 591 (8th Cir. 1979) Definition of an Inmate of a Public Institution -- Title XVI of the Social Security Act

AR 88-6(8)

EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/27/88

ISSUE:

Whether, for purposes of determining eligibility for supplemental security

income (SSI), an individual is considered an inmate of a public

institution when he or she resides voluntarily in such an institution and

pays for all services provided.

STATUTE/REGULATION/RULING CITATION:

CIRCUIT:

EIGHTH (NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, NEBRASKA, MINNESOTA, IOWA, MISSOURI,

ARKANSAS)

Levings v. Califano, 604 f.2d 591 (8th Cir. 1979)

APPLICABILITY OF RULING:

This Ruling applies to determinations or decisions at all administrative

levels (i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law judge hearing

and Appeals Council).

This ruling revokes SSR

80-11c .

DESCRIPTION OF CASE:

Myrtle Levings began receiving SSI payments in January 1974. In September

1974, she entered Monroe Manor, a publicly operated nursing home in

Missouri. During her entire residence at Monroe Manor, Ms. Levings paid

for all services provided.

In April 1975, Ms. Levings informed the Social Security Administration

(SSA) that she was residing at Monroe Manor. In November 1975, SSA

notified Ms. Levings that she was ineligible for SSI payments because she

was an "inmate of a public institution." In November 1975, Ms. Levings

moved to a privately operated facility and received SSI while in

residence. In December 1975, she reentered Monroe Manor.

In March 1976, SSA again advised Ms. Levings that she was ineligible for

benefits due to her status as an "inmate of a public institution." She

appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Missouri. The district court affirmed the Secretary's decision. Ms.

Levings then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit. That court reversed the district court.

HOLDING:

ised Ms. Levings that she was ineligible for

benefits due to her status as an "inmate of a public institution." She

appealed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Missouri. The district court affirmed the Secretary's decision. Ms.

Levings then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit. That court reversed the district court.

HOLDING:

The Eighth Circuit held that Ms. Levings was not a "inmate" of a public

institution within the meaning of Section 1611(e)(1)(A) of the Social

Security Act (the Act). Absent statutory definition, the court held that

words should be given their common meaning. The court stated that

ordinarily, the term "inmate" refers to persons confined in institutions

under some form of restraint, and not to persons residing at facilities

voluntarily.

The court further cited the Secretary's regulation (20 C.F.R.

416.231(b)(3)) which stated, in part, that an individual who lives in a

public institution and who "receives" treatment and care is an inmate of

such institution. [1] The court

determined that since Ms. Levings paid for all services provided, she was

"purchasing" rather than "receiving" treatment and services within the

meaning of the Secretary's regulations.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW LEVINGS DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

SSA issued a ruling of nonacquiescence

( SSR 80-11c ) in the Levings decision and revised its regulations to clarify SSA's

policy. Under that policy, as reflected in 20 C.F.R. 416.201, an

individual is an "inmate of a public institution" under Section 1611 (e)

services within the

meaning of the Secretary's regulations.

STATEMENT AS TO HOW LEVINGS DIFFERS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY

POLICY:

SSA issued a ruling of nonacquiescence

( SSR 80-11c ) in the Levings decision and revised its regulations to clarify SSA's

policy. Under that policy, as reflected in 20 C.F.R. 416.201, an

individual is an "inmate of a public institution" under Section 1611 (e)

(1) (A) of the Act if he or she is a resident of a public institution. A

resident is a person who can receive substantially all his or her food and

shelter while living in the institution. Under the regulation, an

individual meets this definition whether or not the individual resides

voluntarily in the public institution, and whether or not the individual

or someone else pays for the services provided to the individual in the

institution. SSA's interpretation of the statutory term "inmate"

recognizes the definition of "inmate" in the technical sense as a "person

lodged with others, and often confined, in an institution, asylum, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary , Coll. ed., (1966). The statutory

term "inmate" is thus not limited to involuntary confinement and includes

individuals who are voluntarily in a public institution.

The Eighth Circuit's decision holds than an individual does not meet the

definition of an inmate of a public institution if he or she resides at

such a facility on a voluntary basis and pays for all services provided by

the institution.

EXPLANATION OF HOW SSA WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE

CIRCUIT:

This Ruling applies only to cases in which the individual resides in a

public institution in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota,

Iowa, Missouri, [2] or Arkansas

at the time of the determination or decision at any level of

administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law

judge hearing or Appeals Council.

WILL APPLY THE DECISION WITHIN THE

CIRCUIT:

This Ruling applies only to cases in which the individual resides in a

public institution in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota,

Iowa, Missouri, [2] or Arkansas

at the time of the determination or decision at any level of

administrative review, i.e., initial, reconsideration, administrative law

judge hearing or Appeals Council.

An individual who is a "resident of a public institution," as defined in

20 C.F.R. 416.201, does not meet the definition of an "inmate" of a public

institution as used in Section 1611 (e) (1)(a) of the Act if he or she:

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Date of Publication 10/27/88

[1] 20 C.F.R. 416.231(b)(3) was

subsequently revised to clarify SSA's policy. The revised regulation

appears at 20 C.F.R. 416.201.

[2] It should be noted that the

Eighth Circuit's holding in Levings has been applied to all SSI

applicants and recipients voluntarily residing in "Missouri nursing home

district nursing homes" and paying for any services or treatment under the

district courts order in Hollingsworth v. Schweiker, Civil Action

No. N81-0035C (E.D. Mo. March 3, 1983).