SSR 64-33c: SECTION 202. -- APPLICATION FOR BENEFITS -- WITHDRAWAL BY INCOMPETENT CLAIMANT

20 CFR 404.615

SSR 64-33c

WATTS v . CELEBREZZE , U.S.D.C., S. D. Ind., Indianapolis

Div., Civ. No. 62-C-29 (6/26/63) (CCH U.I.R. Fed. Par. 14,983)

DILLIN, Judge :

The plaintiff brought this action to review a final decision of the

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, denying the plaintiff's

application for a period of disability and disability benefits, as

authorized by the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 416(i), §

423.

This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to § 205(g) of the

Social Security Act, U.S.C.A. § 405(g). It has been submitted upon the

transcript of the record, plaintiff's motion for judgment on the

pleadings, and defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The record discloses that plaintiff filed his application for disability

benefits on April 2, 1957. On April 11, 1957, he filed what the Bureau of

Old-Age and Survivors Insurance considered to be a withdrawal of such

application, but what plaintiff contends was merely a request that the

Bureau withhold consideration of the application until further notice from

him.

On May 18, 1959, plaintiff filed a second application for benefits.

Benefits were denied by the Bureau. He requested a hearing, which was

granted, and the hearing examiner, in an opinion dated June 23, 1960,

allowed the application. The Bureau accordingly issued its award for

benefits retroactive to May 1958.

On February 7, 1961, plaintiff requested reconsideration by the Bureau of

its award, on the sole ground that the award should have been based on his

original application of April 2, 1957, with benefits to commence as of

July 1957, [1] as per § 223(c)(3)

of the Act. The Bureau reconsidered the claim, but held that the

determination of June 23, 1960, was correct. On March 28, 1961, plaintiff

requested a hearing, which was granted, and on July 26, 1961, the hearing

examiner held that the previous determinations as to date of entitlement

were correct

ation of April 2, 1957, with benefits to commence as of

July 1957, [1] as per § 223(c)(3)

of the Act. The Bureau reconsidered the claim, but held that the

determination of June 23, 1960, was correct. On March 28, 1961, plaintiff

requested a hearing, which was granted, and on July 26, 1961, the hearing

examiner held that the previous determinations as to date of entitlement

were correct. The Appeals Council declined to review such determination,

which thereupon became final.

* * * * * *

Plaintiff's own characterization of his disabling illness was asthma,

stomach trouble, and nervousness. However, the hearing examiner's decision

of June 23, 1960, upon which the Bureau's award is based, finds that

plaintiff has a severe mental impairment which precluded him from

substantial gainful activity after January 28, 1956. Psychiatric

examination of April 1960, gave a diagnosis of chronic paranoid

schizophrenia, probably active for many years, characterized by severely

disturbed thought processes and an elaborate paranoid delusional system.

The prognosis was thought to be poor.

Thus we have a plaintiff who was at all stages of the various proceedings

before the Bureau a person suffering from a mental illness, and who is

still suffering from such illness. the proceedings must be viewed in this

light.

As to the alleged withdrawal of plaintiff's application for benefits on

April 11, 1957, it is true that the language of such instrument would

justify the hearing examiner in holding that a complete withdrawal was

intended, if such instrument had been executed by a rational person.

However, the Bureau's own finding demonstrates conclusively that plaintiff

was not rational on such date

t.

As to the alleged withdrawal of plaintiff's application for benefits on

April 11, 1957, it is true that the language of such instrument would

justify the hearing examiner in holding that a complete withdrawal was

intended, if such instrument had been executed by a rational person.

However, the Bureau's own finding demonstrates conclusively that plaintiff

was not rational on such date. Further study of the record indicates that

he was at that time laboring under the delusion that various individuals

were following him, spying upon him, and conspiring to send him to prison

for misstating the date of his birth in his application, and that such

delusion motivated the "withdrawal."

The courts are bound to protect the rights of persons suffering from

mental illness, and should, in proper cases, relieve them from mistakes in

judgment committed while in such condition. We know of no good reason why

the same rule should not apply to boards, bureaus, and commissions of the

executive branch of the government, while acting in a quasi judicial

capacity.

It is apparent that plaintiff would have been entitled to benefits from

July 1957, pursuant to his original application, but for its purported

withdrawal. We hold that the purported withdrawal, having been made by a

person of unsound mind to his detriment, should have been disregarded by

the Bureau and his * * * entitlement to benefits fixed to commence as of

July 1957. The decision of the Secretary is therefore not based upon

substantial evidence and is contrary to law.

Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings is therefore GRANTED,

and the defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

[1] The earliest month for which

a disability insurance benefit was payable, under § 223(c) of the Social

Security Act, was July 1957. [Ed.]