SSR 63-51c: SECTION 218. -- STATE AND LOCAL COVERAGE -- EMPLOYEE OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION

20 CFR 404.1004(c)

SSR 63-51c

ANDERSON v. CELEBREZZE , U.S.D.C., N.D. of Ind., Lafayette

Area, Hammond Div., Civ. No. 147, (11/15/62) (CCH UIR-1, Fed. Par.

14,733)

ESCHBACH, District Judge :

The captioned matter is now before the Court on defendant's Motion for

Summary Judgment. Preliminary to a disposition of the instant motion, a

brief statement of the pertinent facts herein is appropriate.

Plaintiffs seek in the instant action a review of a decision of the

hearing examiner of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security

Administration, denying their claims for old-age insurance benefits * * *.

Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the captioned matter is founded

upon 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g).

The pertinent facts are not in dispute and are as follows:

Plaintiff Samuel O. Anderson applied for old-age benefits on February 21,

1955. * * * [T]he Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance determined

that the services performed by plaintiff as Deputy Tax Assessor in Union

Township, White County, Indiana, did not constitute "employment" as

defined in the Act; that the remuneration received by him for such

services were, therefore, not "wages" creditable to his earnings record,

and, therefore, that no benefits [are payable] to plaintiffs. Upon

reconsideration, the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance affirmed

its determination, whereupon plaintiff, on July 8, 1959, requested a

hearing before a hearing examiner of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Such hearing was held, and the hearing examiner having heard testimony and

examined the documentary evidence submitted the decision of the Bureau * *

*.

] to plaintiffs. Upon

reconsideration, the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance affirmed

its determination, whereupon plaintiff, on July 8, 1959, requested a

hearing before a hearing examiner of the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Such hearing was held, and the hearing examiner having heard testimony and

examined the documentary evidence submitted the decision of the Bureau * *

*.

The sole [finding of the hearing examiner which is assailed by plaintiff

is] that plaintiff as a Deputy Union Township Assessor was not an employee

of White County and, therefore, not entitled to old-age benefits, as Union

Township employees at the time material herein were not covered by an

agreement for coverage with the defendant * * *. The Court's sole concern

in these regards is whether the findings of the hearing examiner are

supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g), Rosewall v.

Folsom , C.A. 7, 239 F.2d 724, 728 (1957), Carqueville v.

Flemming , C.A. 7, 263 F.2d 875, 877 (1959), Brunenkant v.

Celebrezze , C.A. 7, No. 13715, October 31, 1962.

It is manifest from the opinion written by the hearing examiner

indicating exhaustive research of the legal principles governing

plaintiff's status * * * that his determination is supported by

substantial evidence and is, therefore, conclusive. It was correctly

perceived by the hearing examiner that although the officials of White

County were under the impression that plaintiff as a Deputy Union Township

Assessor was covered under the agreement providing coverage for employees

of White County, and although the Attorney General of Indiana had

submitted an opinion that deputy Union Township assessors were offices of

Union Township, and not of White County, neither of those determinations

could be binding upon the defendant

were under the impression that plaintiff as a Deputy Union Township

Assessor was covered under the agreement providing coverage for employees

of White County, and although the Attorney General of Indiana had

submitted an opinion that deputy Union Township assessors were offices of

Union Township, and not of White County, neither of those determinations

could be binding upon the defendant. Rather, the hearing examiner

considered all of the factors relevant to the question of plaintiff's

status, such as, by whom his salary was paid, the degree of control which

could be exercised over him and by whom in the discharge of his duties,

etc. There was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that

although the township officials were paid from the county treasury, this

was merely a matter of administrative convenience and economy and that the

county could not legally control the exercise by the township officials

and their employees of their respective duties, whatever degree of

cooperation there may have been between the two political subdivisions.

Such being the case, there can be no question but that the hearing

examiner's decision that plaintiff was an employee of Union Township, and

not White County, was supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, is

conclusive.

* * * * * * *

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement is, therefore, now granted and

judgment is now entered for the defendant.

Cost to be taxed in favor of the defendant. Entered: November 15,

1962.