# 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 > Federal · Rulings · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_DI_SSR_74_21c ## Section - **Citation:** SSR 74-21c - **Heading:** 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 - **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 74-21c ## Text 20 CFR 404.408 SSR 74-21c Grant v. Weinberger , 482 F.2d 1290 (6th Cir., 1973) PER CURIAM: Appellant, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, appeals from the grant of full Social Security disability benefits by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. This case is an extension of the debate previously joined in Lofty v. Richardson , 440 F.2d 1144 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 404 U.S. 985 (1971), and ultimately decided in Richardson v. Belcher , 404 U.S. 78 (1971). These cases concerned a due process attack upon 42 U.S.C. § 424(a) (1970), wherein Congress provided an offset against Social Security disability payments of the amount of any payments for disability then being made under a state workmen's compensation plan. In the instant case plaintiff Grant suffered the amputation of his arm in the course of his employment at the Lakey Foundry Corporation. The employer paid the sums provided by the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act ( see M.S.A. 17.237 (361) (Cum. Supp. 1972)). This provision provides in part that the "disability . . . shall be deemed to continue for the period specified. . . ." ". . . arms, 269 weeks . . ." (M.S.A. 17.237 (361) (i) (Cum. Supp. 1972)). The administrative decision and that of the Hearing Examiner and the appeals council was that the payments provided for the loss of the arm must be offset against Social Security disability payments. On petition to review that decision before the District Judge, the Judge recognized that Richardson v. Belcher, supra, and Lofty v. Richardson , supra, were controlling on the constitutional issue pertaining to due process, but held that Michigan case law, particularly Jones v. Cutler Oil Co. , 356 Mich d for the loss of the arm must be offset against Social Security disability payments. On petition to review that decision before the District Judge, the Judge recognized that Richardson v. Belcher, supra, and Lofty v. Richardson , supra, were controlling on the constitutional issue pertaining to due process, but held that Michigan case law, particularly Jones v. Cutler Oil Co. , 356 Mich. 487 (1959), demonstrated that specific loss benefits under the Michigan Workmen's Compensation statute are not dependent upon actual (as opposed to presumed) disability, but really amount to arbitrarily determined amounts paid for the loss of a specific portion of the body. See Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co. , 378 Mich. 689 (1967). The decision of this court in Lofty, supra , and that of the Supreme Court in Richardson ( Belcher ), supra , apply an arguably harsh result because it seemed obvious to the courts concerned that Congress intended the offset and that its legislative decision was well within its legislative powers. In this case the harshness of the Congressional enactment is even further illustrated. The loss is permanent and in the instance of this totally disabled plaintiff, it will not result in any benefit at all in excess of what he would have received (without Workmen's Compensation) from Social Security total disability benefits alone. The purpose of the offset amendment, as well as its method of operation, seems plain to us from the face of the statute: 42 U.S.C. § 424a. (1970). We note, of course, the District Judge's reliance upon state law holdings that under the Michigan Compensation law specific benefits are not dependent upon proof of incapacity for work. See Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co. , 378 Mich. 689, 696 (1967). This fact, however, does not serve to remove these benefits from the Michigan Workmen's Compensation plan or to demonstrate any Congressional intent to exclude them under § 424a. reliance upon state law holdings that under the Michigan Compensation law specific benefits are not dependent upon proof of incapacity for work. See Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co. , 378 Mich. 689, 696 (1967). This fact, however, does not serve to remove these benefits from the Michigan Workmen's Compensation plan or to demonstrate any Congressional intent to exclude them under § 424a. Since the benefits for specific loss which are the subject of this dispute are provided for the months concerned "under a workmen's compensation law or plan . . . of . . . a State" the offset mandated by the statute must be given effect. Richardson v. Belcher, supra at 84. The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case is remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the Secretary. ## 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_74_21c. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.