# SSR 71-34c: SSR 71-34c: SECTION 224(a). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION FOR RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_71_34c

## Section

- **Citation:** SSR 71-34c
- **Heading:** SSR 71-34c: SECTION 224(a). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION FOR RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Social Security Rulings / DI / Worker's Compensation / SSR 71-34c

## Text

20 CFR 404.408

SSR 71-34c

Ladner v. Secretary , 304 F.Supp. 475 (U.S.D.C., S.D. Miss.,
1969)

NIXON, District Judge: This is a suit brought pursuant to section
205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 405(g), by Hubert F. Ladner
(hereinafter referred to as Claimant) to review a final decision of the
Secretary on September 20, 1968. The Hearing Examiner determined that
Claimant's disability insurance benefits were subject to offset deductions
under section 224 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 424a. This decision was held to be
correct by the Appeals Council and thus subject to review by this
Court.

The operative facts are as follows. Claimant is 47 years old, married,
and has six children, four of whom are under 18 years of age. He is a high
school graduate with two years of college credits. He was discharged from
the Army in 1945 with a pension for 20 percent disability due to a back
injury and mental condition. This pension has since been raised to total
disability in the amount of $119.00 monthly. On November 12, 1965,
Claimant injured his knee while employed at Ingalls Shipyard. This injury
rendered him unable to walk and required periodic drainage. In March of
1966, a cartilage was removed from the knee but the operation was
unsuccessful. Later in 1966, a patellectomy was performed but this still
led to little improvement. A complete knee fusion has been recommended but
there has been no arthrodesis as Claimant's condition is complicated by
chronic thrombophlebitis in the right leg.

From March 2, 1966 to February 7, 1967, Claimant received temporary total
disability payments of $70.00 per week totaling $3,430.00. Thereafter, it
was determined that Claimant had lost 52.5 per centum use of his right
leg. Title 33, U.S.C. 908(e) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers
Compensation Act provides:

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *
chronic thrombophlebitis in the right leg.

From March 2, 1966 to February 7, 1967, Claimant received temporary total
disability payments of $70.00 per week totaling $3,430.00. Thereafter, it
was determined that Claimant had lost 52.5 per centum use of his right
leg. Title 33, U.S.C. 908(e) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers
Compensation Act provides:

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

Thus, under this schedule, Claimant became entitled to 151.2 weeks'
compensation (52.5% of 288 weeks) totaling $10,584.00. Beginning February
8, 1967, claimant was paid 55 4/5 weeks' compensation at $70.00 per week
and on November 11, 1967, he received, upon his application, a lump sum
payment for the balance of the 151.2 weeks.

Pursuant to section 223 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 423,
Claimant, having established a period of disability beginning March 2,
1967, was awarded disability insurance benefits for himself and family.
These benefits, however, were subsequently reduced upon the determination
that he was also receiving workmen's compensation benefits. This offset
was made under the provisions of section 224 of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. 424(a) and (b) which provides:

The correctness of the amount by which Claimant's Social Security
benefits were reduced is not questioned. The sole issue before this Court
is whether or not the reduction provisions of section 224 should be
applied against the Claimant herein.
ensation benefits. This offset
was made under the provisions of section 224 of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. 424(a) and (b) which provides:

The correctness of the amount by which Claimant's Social Security
benefits were reduced is not questioned. The sole issue before this Court
is whether or not the reduction provisions of section 224 should be
applied against the Claimant herein.

Claimant first contends that when a scheduled injury under section 908(c)
of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is established,
the offset provision should not apply. The payments for permanent partial
disability under this schedule, Claimant asserts, were for the loss of use
of his right leg and would have been made regardless of any loss of
earning power. This same view is expressed by the Assistant Deputy
Commissioner, United States Department of Labor, in a letter concerning
Claimant's request for a lump sum award (Exhibit 16a). In this same line,
Claimant suggests a distinction between a claim based upon a loss under
the Longshoremen's Act (loss of a scheduled member) and a claim based upon
the same loss under the Social Security Act (inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity), the test for each being quite dissimilar.
While it is true that the loss of earning capacity should not be
considered in determining that a particular impairment falls within the
schedule and in the resulting entitlement to compensation, such a
determination does in fact establish a loss of earning capacity.
r the Social Security Act (inability to engage in
substantial gainful activity), the test for each being quite dissimilar.
While it is true that the loss of earning capacity should not be
considered in determining that a particular impairment falls within the
schedule and in the resulting entitlement to compensation, such a
determination does in fact establish a loss of earning capacity.

The extent of the loss of earning capacity is therefore limited by the
amount specified in the schedule. Williams v. Donovan , 234 F.Supp.
135 (1964), 367 F.2d 825 (C.A. 5 1966). Thus, the term disability, as
defined by 902(10) of the Longshoremen's Act to mean "incapacity because
of injury to earn the wages which employee was receiving at the time of
injury. . . .", is applicable to both scheduled as well as other
compensation benefits under the Act. In light of the foregoing, Claimant's
further contention as to the dissimilarity of test under the two Acts is
without merit, the reason for disability payments under both being
substantially the same. The language of section 224(a)(2) of the Social
Security Act is clear. If an individual is entitled to "periodic benefits
for total or partial disability (whether or not permanent)" "under a
workmen's compensation law or plan of the United States or a State", then
Social Security payments shall be reduced accordingly. Claimant herein is
entitled to permanent partial disability payments for a 52.5% loss of use
of his right leg under the Longshoremen's Act, a workmen's compensation
plan of the United States. The determination that a particular impairment
falls within the schedule provided for in section 908(c) of the
Longshoremen's Act does not prevent the application of the offset
provisions of section 224(a) of the Social Security Act.
anent partial disability payments for a 52.5% loss of use
of his right leg under the Longshoremen's Act, a workmen's compensation
plan of the United States. The determination that a particular impairment
falls within the schedule provided for in section 908(c) of the
Longshoremen's Act does not prevent the application of the offset
provisions of section 224(a) of the Social Security Act.

On November 11, 1967, Claimant, upon his application, received a lump sum
payment of $6,694 representing the balance of the total amount due under
the schedule for permanent partial disability payments of $70.00 per week
for a period of 151.2 weeks. This award was made pursuant to section
914(j) of the Longshoremen's Act which provides:

It is the contention of the Claimant that this award falls within the
exclusion contained in section 224(b) which provides that:

Claimant's contention is without merit. The lump sum award was without
any doubt a commutation or a substitute for the permanent partial
disability payments of $70.00 per week. The employer's liability to
compensation claimant for his disability was properly discharged by this
payment representing the balance on 151.2 weeks of compensation due.
(Exhibit 22) Claimant questions when, if not in the situation under
consideration, a lump sum payment would be excluded from the reduction
provision. An examination of the purpose of this section provides the
answer to this query:
's liability to
compensation claimant for his disability was properly discharged by this
payment representing the balance on 151.2 weeks of compensation due.
(Exhibit 22) Claimant questions when, if not in the situation under
consideration, a lump sum payment would be excluded from the reduction
provision. An examination of the purpose of this section provides the
answer to this query:

Case authority in this particular area is minimal to say the least. The
Defendant, Secretary, cites only two related cases while the Claimant
presents none. Although the cases cited by the Defendant dealt with
reductions due to the receipt of state workmen's compensation benefits,
both held in effect that the lump sum payment was to be regarded as
replacing the periodic payments and the offset should continue
periodically for that period of time represented by the lump sum award. Walters v. Flemming , 185 F.Supp. 288 (D.C. Mass., 1960); Knapczyk v. Ribicoff , 201 F.Supp. 283 (N.D. Ill., 1962).

After a careful review of the record and the briefs of both parties,
including the cases and authority cited therein, this Court is of the
opinion that the findings made by the Secretary are supported by
substantial evidence and the Secretary applied the proper legal standards.
The decision of the Secretary is affirmed and his Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted.

A judgment accordingly shall be presented to the Court.

## Nearby sections

- [SSR 70-45c SSR 70-45c: SECTION 224. -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION UPON RECEIPT OF LUMP-SUM PAYMENT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_70_45c.md)
- [SSR 71-15a SSR 71-15a: SECTION 224 -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS -- COMPROMISE LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_71_15a.md)
- [SSR 71-34c SSR 71-34c: SECTION 224(a). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION FOR RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKER'S COMPENSATION ACT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_71_34c.md)
- [SSR 71-45c SSR 71-45c: SECTION 224(a) (42 U.S.C.A. 424(a)). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION FOR RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- "REDEMPTION SETTLEMENT" UNDER MICHIGAN STATUTE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_71_45c.md)
- [SSR 72-37c SSR 72-37c: SECTION 224(a) (42 U.S.C. 424(a)). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION UPON RECEIPT OF STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS -- CONSTITUTIONALITY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_72_37c.md)
- [SSR 72-50 SSR 72-50: SECTION 224 (42 U.S.C. 424) -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS UPON RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS -- DIFFERENT IMPAIRMENTS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_72_50.md)
- [SSR 74-21c SSR 74-21c: SECTION 224(a) (42 U.S.C. 424(a)). -- DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION FOR RECEIPT OF STATE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION PAYMENTS -- "SPECIFIC LOSS" BENEFIT UNDER MICHIGAN STATUTE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_74_21c.md)
- [SSR 76-34c SSR 76-34c: SECTION 224(a) AND (b) (42 U.S.C. 424(a) and (b)) -- DISABILITY -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS DUE TO RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_76_34c.md)
- [SSR 79-20 SSR 79-20: TITLE II: INTERRUPTED WORKERS' COMPENSATION OFFSET](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_79_20.md)
- [SSR 80-14 SSR 80-14: TITLE II: EFFECTIVE DATE OF REDUCTION IN DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS WHEN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS ARE INCREASED](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_80_14.md)
- [SSR 81-20 SSR 81-20: SECTION 224 (42 U.S.C. 424) DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS -- LUMP-SUM PAYMENT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS PAID INTO AN IRREVOCABLE TRUST](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_81_20.md)
- [SSR 81-32 SSR 81-32: SECTION 224 (42 U.S.C. 424) DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS -- ANNUITY AWARDED IN A WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION SETTLEMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_81_32.md)
- [SSR 81-33 SSR 81-33: SECTION 224 (42 U.S.C. 424) DISABILITY -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS DUE TO RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- TREATMENT OF CERTAIN LUMP-SUM SETTLEMENTS UNDER IOWA LAW](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_81_33.md)
- [SSR 82-4 SSR 82-4: SECTION 224 (42 U.S.C. 424) DISABILITY -- REDUCTION OF BENEFITS DUE TO RECEIPT OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION -- PAYMENTS UNDER THE VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S BENEFIT LAW OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_82_4.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_71_34c. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.