SSR 67-13: SECTION 218(s). -- STATE AND LOCAL COVERAGE -- COMMISSIONER'S RULING ON STATE'S REQUEST FOR REVIEW -- SERVICES FOR MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

20 CFR 404.1270-404.1274

SSR 67-13

Section 218(s) of the Social Security Act, as amended, provides that

where assessment of an amount due by a State under a Federal-State

agreement pursuant to section 218 has been made, or a State's claim for a

credit or refund of an overpayment under such agreement has been

disallowed, or a State has been allowed a credit or refund of an

overpayment under such agreement, the Secretary shall, upon written

request filed by the State within a stipulated time, review such

assessment, disallowance or allowance stating the basis therefor. The

Secretary has delegated to the Commissioner of Social Security authority

to make reviews and findings and to give notice of his findings as

required by section 218(s).

The State of Michigan timely requested a review pursuant to section

218(s) of the assessment made pursuant to a determination that the wage

earner's services as an employee of the Michigan Department of

Conservation were performed in a full-time position and were covered under

the State's agreement with the Secretary made pursuant to section 218.

When social security coverage was extended under this agreement to

employees of the State of Michigan in positions not under a retirement

system, services in part-time positions (which are defined for purposes of

this coverage group as positions normally requiring performance of service

for less than 600 hours in a calendar year) were excluded.

the Secretary made pursuant to section 218.

When social security coverage was extended under this agreement to

employees of the State of Michigan in positions not under a retirement

system, services in part-time positions (which are defined for purposes of

this coverage group as positions normally requiring performance of service

for less than 600 hours in a calendar year) were excluded.

The facts in the matter are that the wage earner worked for the Michigan

Conservation Department from March 17, 1953, until the second calendar

quarter of 1956, except for one period of general layoffs. This work was

performed as called for by work orders issued by the State or the

Department of Conservation. Each work order set forth a project to be

accomplished and authorized payment for the materials and labor used in

the project. The wage earner was paid at a specified hourly rate which

applied to work done under any work order. During this 3-year period, the

wage earner usually worked 8 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week, with little

or no loss of time between projects. There is no disagreement as to these

facts. It is the State's view however that the wage earner occupied a

different part-time position with respect to each work order project with

which he was associated.

The Administration's assessment was made on the basis of its findings

that the wage earner's services as an employee of the Michigan Department

of Conservation were performed in a single full-time position, and thus

such services were covered under the State's section 218 agreement.

pied a

different part-time position with respect to each work order project with

which he was associated.

The Administration's assessment was made on the basis of its findings

that the wage earner's services as an employee of the Michigan Department

of Conservation were performed in a single full-time position, and thus

such services were covered under the State's section 218 agreement.

The Commissioner reviewed the assessment made and determined that the

evidence in file did not establish a reasonable basis on which to

distinguish the services performed by the wage earner in connection with

one work order project from the services he performed in connection with

any other project. Accordingly, the Commissioner found that the wage

earner occupied a single position with respect to all work order projects

and this position normally required full-time services. On the basis of

this finding, the Commissioner affirmed the assessment.