Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Johnson v. Shalala

Johnson v. Shalala

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

November 3, 1992, Argued, Submitted, San Francisco, California ; August 6, 1993, Filed

No. 92-35507

Opinion

 [*920]  OPINION

FARRIS, Circuit Judge:

The Secretary of Health and Human Services appeals the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs Tracy Defrance and Sandy Johnson (class representatives). The Secretary argues that the district court erred in certifying a class that included individuals who failed to meet either the 60-day limitations period or the exhaustion requirement in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1988). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The United [**2]  States Magistrate Judge had jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3). This court has jurisdiction over the Secretary's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

DISCUSSION

This case originally challenged the Secretary's policy of treating in-kind loans as income under the Supplemental Security Income program. The named plaintiff, 2 Gale Johnson, lived with his elderly mother while awaiting approval of his SSI application. Johnson's mother paid his share of the living expenses with the understanding that he would repay her when he started receiving SSI benefits.

The Social Security Administration had a systemwide policy of treating "in-kind" loans as income. The agency thus reflected the in-kind household expenses that Johnson's mother loaned him as income and reduced his lump sum  [**3]  award by one-third. Johnson would have received the full SSI check if his mother had loaned him cash to pay for his share of the living expenses or if he had paid his living expenses with a credit card. See SSR 78-26.

Johnson filed this action on September 19, 1990, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He asserted that the policy of distinguishing between in-kind loans and cash loans for the purpose of determining income was invalid under the Social Security Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2 F.3d 918 *; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 20146 **; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5911; 93 Daily Journal DAR 10157; Unemployment Ins. Rep. (CCH) P17,442

GALE R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONNA E. SHALALA 1, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellant.

Prior History:  [**1]  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. D.C. No. CV-90-438-HLR. Mikel H. Williams, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.

CORE TERMS

claimants, benefits, district court, final decision, required to exhaust, in-kind, exhaustion, toll, plaintiffs', administrative remedy, loans, irreparable, collateral, majority opinion, lapsed, statute of limitations, social security, retroactive, waived, claim for benefits, class member, regulations, mandamus, sixty-day, argues, courts

Public Health & Welfare Law, Disability Insurance & SSI Benefits, Eligibility, Income & Resources, Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Prerequisites for Class Action, General Overview, Appeals, Standards of Review, Abuse of Discretion, Benefit Determinations & Payments, Termination, Reduction, Judicial Review, Reviewability, Exhaustion of Remedies, Workers' Compensation & SSDI, Administrative Law, Justiciability, Exhaustion of Remedies, Administrative Remedies, Social Security Disability Insurance, Healthcare Law, Business Administration & Organization, Social Security, Administrative Hearings, Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Adverse Determinations, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Tolling, Remedies, Mandamus, Jurisdiction, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction Over Actions, Writs, Common Law Writs