April 17, 2012 (New York) – As many as 140,000
Americans nationwide will get their Social Security or Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) benefits restored as a result of an order
issued by Judge Sidney H. Stein in a federal court in Manhattan on
April 13, 2012. The benefits in question date back to October 2006
and may total $1 billion.
The order is the culmination of more than five years of litigation
in Clark v. Astrue – Docket No. 06-15521 (S.D.N.Y.)
– a case brought against the U.S. Social Security
Administration (SSA) challenging its practice of relying
exclusively on outstanding probation and parole warrants as
sufficient evidence that individuals are in fact violating a
condition of probation or parole as a basis for denying them
benefits. Rather than check the facts of a case, SSA merely matched
warrant databases against its records. When it found a probation or
parole warrant in the name of someone who was receiving benefits,
SSA checked with law enforcement and, if the law enforcement agency
was not actively pursuing the individual, SSA would cut off that
individual's benefits. In March 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit ruled that the agency's practice of
relying solely on outstanding probation or parole violation arrest
warrants to suspend or deny benefits conflicted with the plain
meaning of the Social Security Act. Under Judge Stein's order,
the SSA is enjoined from denying or suspending benefits in this
manner and must reinstate all previously suspended benefits
retroactive to the date the benefits were suspended. The SSA has
until June 12, 2012, to submit a plan setting forth its anticipated
time frames for implementing the terms of the order.
The unlawful policy caused widespread suffering while it was in
effect. Elaine Clark, one of the lead plaintiffs, had her benefits
stopped in the beginning of 2006 because of a warrant from Santa
Clara County, CA, where she had been sentenced to probation and
ordered to pay restitution as a result of an embezzlement charge.
During that time, she was diagnosed with end-stage renal disease on
top of other ailments and was no longer able to work. Unable to get
a kidney transplant in California, she returned to her hometown of
Buffalo, NY, when she learned the waiting time there would be far
less. Although she obtained the transplant, she was still in need
of extensive medical care and unable to work. Her modest Social
Security benefit was barely enough to pay the rent at the long-term
care facility and not sufficient to pay the required restitution.
Ms. Clark died in 2008 at the age of 65. All the while, law
enforcement officials in California knew where she was and knew of
her condition, and had no interest in pursuing her.
"As a result of the Court's order, SSA can no longer use
this misguided policy to consign others to spend their final days
in the type of misery endured by Elaine Clark," said Gerald A.
McIntyre, directing attorney at the National Senior Citizens Law
Center. "It was the very purpose of the Social Security Act to
spare older Americans from such a fate."
"The aged and disabled individuals victimized by the Social
Security Administration's unlawful practice have suffered
greatly, with many facing eviction, dire poverty or worse,"
said Jennifer J. Parish, attorney at the Urban Justice Center's
Mental Health Project. "Cutting off someone's income
should not be taken so lightly, and we are gratified that the Court
has ordered that the SSA restore benefits to those who were
illegally denied them."
"The victims of the Social Security Administration's
policy are among the most vulnerable people in America," said
Russell L. Hirschhorn, senior counsel at Proskauer. "This
decision will help elderly Americans and persons with disabilities
regain the basic income they need to survive and make ends
meet."
Judge Stein's order is the latest in a series of favorable
federal court rulings challenging the SSA's practice of using
outstanding warrants to deny benefits. A related lawsuit in
California, Martinez v. Astrue, resulted in relief
for a class of more than 200,000 people who received hundreds of
millions of dollars in retroactive benefits in addition to
reinstatement of current benefits.
"The overwhelming majority of people who receive Social
Security rely on those benefits for all or most of their
income," said McIntyre. "It is no wonder then that many
people affected by this policy ended up homeless or having to move
in with relatives or friends. Finding many of them will be
extremely difficult."
A copy of Judge Stein's order can be read here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
