The federal legal services program has successfully fought to get
disability benefits for hundreds of thousands of alcoholics and other
substance abusers. While alcoholics need help with their disease, legal
services policy of providing them checks without requiring treatment is
not the way to go. In addition to these cases, LSC grantees are also busy
trying to get SSDI for other undeserving recipients.
Legal Services Extends SSDI to Addicts
In this landmark case, Neighborhood Legal Services of Pittsburgh, an LSC grantee, successfully argued for the rights of alcoholics to receive Social Security Disability benefits (SSDI). In the 1970s and early ‘80s, legal services client, Charles Purter, had applied three times for assistance but was turned down by the Social Security Administration because his ailments were largely the result of chronic alcoholism. Purter drank an average of two pints of alcohol a day, had been in and out of rehab programs and was unable to hold a steady job. Purter even admitted that he “can’t help the drinking.” In 1985, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit struck down the Social Security Administration’s prohibition of dispensing assistance to alcoholics. It was argued that alcoholism is a disease not subject to individual control and since Purter was clearly unable to control his drinking, that alone justified his eligibility for benefits. Thanks in part to legal services, an estimated 250,000 alcoholics and drug addicts are receiving 1.4 billion dollars a year in welfare to support their habit.
See Purter v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 682 (US App. Ct.) 1985,
and Congressional Testimony of Senator William Cohen, Senate Special Committee
on Aging, February 10, 1994
Community Legal Services Gets Welfare for Man Who Just Can’t Wait
Since the Purter case, LSC grantees have been aggressively advocating the rights of alcoholics to disability payments. In 1990, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia argued that another alcoholic, Leroy Johnson, was wrongly denied benefits when he applied on the grounds that his alcoholism and bad knee prevented him from working. A federal district court held that the Social Security Administration erred in saying Johnson could find gainful employment in less physical jobs because they failed to take into account his alcoholism. SSA said Johnson could control his alcohol consumption and thus should not receive benefits. As evidence of control, the SSA cited the claimant’s ability to wait to drink until the liquor store opens in the morning. The court rejected SSA’s claim because he keeps alcohol in the house so he can drink when he awakens. Legal services argued that Johnson’s inability to wait until the liquor store opens, his drinking while in rehab and his being turned away from AA meetings because of drunkenness only reinforces his claim to disability.
See Johnson v. Sullivan, 749 F. Supp. 664 (US Dist. Ct.)
1990
Man Gets SSDI Because He Needs Drink to Pick up Welfare Check
In 1992, Community Legal Services of Philadelphia successfully represented an alcoholic in his claim for social security benefits. The Social Security Administration originally rejected the man’s claim for disability because they reasoned that his severe alcoholism was a condition that he could control. However, legal services argued that his alcoholism was so severe that it was beyond his control. As evidence, they cited the fact that he drinks one-half gallon of wine a day, begins drinking in the morning, drinks all day and uses cocaine on occasion. As further evidence for getting SSDI, they said their client drinks whenever he has something important to do like visit a doctor -- or pick up his welfare check.
See Dennis v. Sullivan, 787 F. Supp. 89 (US Dist. Ct.)
1992
LSC Grantee Illegally Charges Clients to Handle SSDI Cases
Kansas Legal Services illegally charged 3400 indigent and handicapped
clients up to $100 an hour to handle their SSDI cases. The Legal Services
Corporation Act, LSC regulations and every opinion of the LSC’s own counsel
over twenty years flatly prohibit LSC grantees charging fees. The practice
has been going on for ten years and apparently continues despite the fact
that KLS and its director Roger McCollister were advised of its illegality.
The Legal Services Corporation was made aware of the violation at a meeting
of the LSC Board in September 1994 but none of the Board members took
action to halt the practice.
See LSC Board Committee Transcript, September 17, 1994
Legal Services Represents Woman in Bogus Claim Case
Western Massachusetts Legal Services tried to get SSDI benefits for a woman who was clearly filing a baseless claim. Three doctors with the state welfare agency found that she could stand and walk normally and carry heavy loads. However, her personal doctor sent a report to the welfare agency stating that she would be “totally disabled” for 10 to 12 months and thus eligible for SSDI. The odd thing is that the same doctor had sent three previous reports showing no long-term disability. The Social Security Administration rejected the woman’s claim because of the sharp discrepancy between the personal doctor’s reports and the three state doctors. Western Massachusetts Legal Services sued the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that HHS should completely disregard the state doctors in favor of the claimant’s doctor. A federal appeals court rejected the argument, saying that a personal doctor’s opinion should not be given “controlling weight” when there are obvious inconsistencies in the record.
See Shaw v. Secretary of HHS, No. 93-2173 (US App. Ct.)
1994