SSR 73-39c: Rescinded 1981

20 CFR 404.355 and 404.609

SSR 73-39c

Alice H. Johnson v. Richardson , 352 F.Supp. 18 (W.D. La., 1972)

Where claimant for lump-sum death payment filed application therefor in

June 1969, based on husband's death in 1943, and alleged that delay

resulted from lack of knowledge, of benefits due, held , claimant

precluded from entitlement since "good cause" exception to time limitation

of 2 years for filing applications was not contained in statute at the

time of husband's death; and further held , worker had no such

accrued interests or right to payment, the denial of which would be

violative of due process since an expectation interest in public benefits

does not confer a contractual right to receive them.

DAWKINS, District Judge: This is a suit by the plaintiff against the

Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, under the Social Security Act

to review a final decision of the Secretary denying plaintiff's

application for entitlement to a lump-sum death benefit under Section

202(i) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §402(i). She began her trek

through the administrative jungle by filing an application for a lump-sum

death payment June 20, 1969, based on the death of her husband which

occurred April 12, 1943. This claim was denied initially, reconsidered,

and a hearing was held, at which time the plaintiff appeared and

testified. The Hearing Examiner rendered a decision holding that plaintiff

was not entitled to receive the lump-sum death payment which was upheld by

the Appeals Council. There was a petition filed for review in this Court;

the defendant moved for summary judgment and filed a brief in support

thereof. The plaintiff has never filed a brief. We therefore proceed to

the merits without assistance from plaintiff.

g Examiner rendered a decision holding that plaintiff

was not entitled to receive the lump-sum death payment which was upheld by

the Appeals Council. There was a petition filed for review in this Court;

the defendant moved for summary judgment and filed a brief in support

thereof. The plaintiff has never filed a brief. We therefore proceed to

the merits without assistance from plaintiff.

It is clear that the decision was based upon the two-year limitation

period contained in the statute at the time of her death. The plaintiff

filed her claim twenty-six years after the death of her husband.

The "good-cause" exception to the two-year limitation is not applicable to

the plaintiff for at the time of the death this particular exception was

not contained in the statute. Plaintiff's only reason for not filing

sooner is lack of knowledge of this particular benefit due the survivors

of wage earners.

Under the provisions of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42

U.S.C. §405(g), the findings of the Secretary as to any fact, if supported

by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on this Court. We

conclude that there is substantial evidence to support the Hearing

Examiner's decision, which was affirmed by the Appeals Council.

Plaintiff also claims that, upon the death of Ed Granville, the lump-sum

payment benefit became a vested property right not subject to divestment.

Furthermore, she claims that the decision of the Secretary as applied to

plaintiff constitute a denial of due process of law, a denial of equal

protection of the laws, and a taking of private property for public use,

without just compensation in contravention of the rights guaranteed

plaintiff by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the

United States in Richardson v. Belcher , 404 U.D. 78, 80 (1971),

stated:

on of the Secretary as applied to

plaintiff constitute a denial of due process of law, a denial of equal

protection of the laws, and a taking of private property for public use,

without just compensation in contravention of the rights guaranteed

plaintiff by the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the

United States in Richardson v. Belcher , 404 U.D. 78, 80 (1971),

stated:

"In our last consideration of a challenge to the constitutionality of a

classification created under the Social Security Act, we held that 'a

person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as

would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.' . . . The fact that social

security benefits are financed in part by taxes on an employee's wages

does not in itself limit the power of Congress to fix the levels of

benefits under the Act or the conditions upon which they may be paid, nor

does an expectation interest in public benefits confer a contractual right

to receive the expected amounts. Our decision in Goldberg v. Kelly ,

397 U.S. 254, upon which the District Court relied, held that as a matter

of procedural due process the interest of a welfare recipient in the

continued payment of benefits is sufficiently fundamental to prohibit the

termination of those benefits without a prior evidentiary hearing. But

there is no controversy over procedure in the present case, and the

analogy drawn in Goldberg between social welfare and 'property,'

397 U.S. at 262 n. 8, cannot be stretched to impose a constitutional

limitation on the power of Congress to make substantive changes in the law

of entitlement to public

benefits." [*]

Therefore, summary judgment is granted in favor of the Secretary of

Health, Education, and Welfare.

[*] SSR 72-37c, C.B. 1972, p.

136 [Ed.]