Rose Szlosek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

First Circuit

Rose Szlosek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

861 F.2d 13, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 15248, 1988 WL 120148

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 1988

Docket88-1141

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 861 F.2d 13 (Rose Szlosek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rose Szlosek v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 861 F.2d 13, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 15248, 1988 WL 120148 (1st Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case has been thoroughly and well tried in the court below and competently argued and briefed before us. It also has received a thoughtful, comprehensive and, we think, sound decision and opinion from the district court. Szlosek v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 674 F.Supp. 944 (D.Mass.1987). We see no legitimate purpose served by repeating, in perhaps somewhat different fashion, the facts, the argument and analysis therein set forth. We, therefore, affirm on that opinion with only the following comments.

The primary argument of appellants is that the words “payments received” in 42 U.S.C. § 1382a (a)(2)(B) preclude the Secretary from applying her regulation, 20 C.F. R. § 416.1123(b), to include money withheld from SSI recipients to recoup a prior Title II Social Security overpayment in determining whether such recipients qualify for SSI benefits. We find helpful and supportive of the district court’s decision Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 105 S.Ct. 1138, 84 *14 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985), where the Court construed the “long-enshrined principle of ‘actual availability/ ” id. at 199, 105 S.Ct. at 1147, which had been applied by the court of appeals to exclude mandatory payroll tax withholdings from being considered as income for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In other words, the Court, facing the question whether mandatory payroll deductions could be considered income in determining AFDC eligibility and benefit amount, concluded that counting the full amount of an individual’s pay check, including amounts withheld for such necessary expenses, did not violate the “availability principle.” Id. at 201-202, 105 S.Ct. at 1147-1148. The appellants, in replying on this case, failed to consider its actual holding.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This case has been thoroughly and well tried in the court below and competently argued and briefed before us. It also has received a thoughtful, comprehensive and, we think, sound decision and opinion from the district court. Szlosek v. Secretary of Health & Human Services, 674 F.Supp. 944 (D.Mass.1987). We see no legitimate purpose served by repeating, in perhaps somewhat different fashion, the facts, the argument and analysis therein set forth. We, therefore, affirm on that opinion with only the following comments.

The primary argument of appellants is that the words “payments received” in 42 U.S.C. § 1382a (a)(2)(B) preclude the Secretary from applying her regulation, 20 C.F. R. § 416.1123(b), to include money withheld from SSI recipients to recoup a prior Title II Social Security overpayment in determining whether such recipients qualify for SSI benefits. We find helpful and supportive of the district court’s decision Heckler v. Turner, 470 U.S. 184, 105 S.Ct. 1138, 84 *14 L.Ed.2d 138 (1985), where the Court construed the “long-enshrined principle of ‘actual availability/ ” id. at 199, 105 S.Ct. at 1147, which had been applied by the court of appeals to exclude mandatory payroll tax withholdings from being considered as income for recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). In other words, the Court, facing the question whether mandatory payroll deductions could be considered income in determining AFDC eligibility and benefit amount, concluded that counting the full amount of an individual’s pay check, including amounts withheld for such necessary expenses, did not violate the “availability principle.” Id. at 201-202, 105 S.Ct. at 1147-1148. The appellants, in replying on this case, failed to consider its actual holding.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

861 F.2d 13, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 15248, 1988 WL 120148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rose-szlosek-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-ca1-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack