Federally subsidized legal services programs nationwide engage in litigation that seeks to expand eligibility for public benefits, such as welfare, disability and unemployment benefits, on a case-by-case basis. In many instances, these suits ending up defending fraudulent, immoral and unhealthy conduct on the part of the people seeking benefits.
Legal Services Defends Stealing Candy
In a case of legal services standing up for bad conduct, Westchester/Putnam
Legal Services in White Plains, New York sought unemployment benefits for
a retail employee who was fired stealing candy from his employer’s store.
Errol Williams, who worked in the tire department at a local Sam’s Club,
was fired after he was caught eating candy from a bag in another part of
the store and then putting the bag back where he found it. Not surpringly,
the state Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Williams was ineligible
for unemployment benefits since his misconduct was the cause of his dismissal.
Legal services decided to appeal this questionable case up to the state
appeals court, which refused to overturn the UIAB decision.
See Williams v. Commissioner of Labor, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7487 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d, June 24, 1999).
Legal Services Seeks ‘Black Lung’ Benefits for Long-Time Smoker
Client-Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia (CCLS) has a long-standing
practice of seeking black-lung disability benefits for Virginia coal miners.
In the case of Janie Bryant, CCLS sought survivors’ benefits for Ms. Bryant
based on the claim that her late husband had died of black lung disease.
As it turns out, however, two of three doctors who had examined Mr.
Bryant concluded that his lung disease occurred because Mr. Bryant had
a two-pack per day smoking habit for over forty years--and the third doctor
also found that Mr. Bryant’s smoking was at least a factor in his death.
In addition, the doctors found that Mr. Bryant’s obesity and heart conditions
probably contributed to his death. Despite this overwhelming evidence
against their client, CCLS chose to spend taxpayers’ dollars appealing
this virtually unwinnable case all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals
in Richmond.
See Bryant v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17886 (4th Cir., July 29, 1999).
Legal Services Fosters Apparent Welfare Scam
Florida Rural Legal Services represented Gloria Medina in appealing
her denial of food stamp and state welfare benefits. Medina was denied
benefits because she had withdrawn $1,000 from her checking account just
before applying for the benefits and was unable to account for the money.
The state Department of Children and Families also disqualified Medina
for future welfare eligibility for ninety days. On appeal, legal
services convinced the court to overturn the ninety day penalty, even though
the period had already expired, on the theory that there was ‘insufficient
evidence’ of Medina’s intent to violate the law. By defending such
obviously shady conduct in welfare benefits cases, legal services contributes
to making welfare much more expensive for taxpayers and much less helpful
to the poor.
See Medina v. Department of Children and Families, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9169 (Fla. App., July 9, 1999).
Legal Services Sues Over State Home-Care Program
Legal Action of Wisconsin, which has repeatedly filed suits seeking
to block Wisconsin’s welfare reforms, is at it again. On May 17,
1999, Legal Action sued the state over the Community Options Program, the
state’s home-care program for the low-income elderly and infirm.
The suit claims the fact that there is a waiting list to get into the program
violates several federal laws, including the Americans With Disabilities
Act. If Legal Action’s suit is successful, it is conceivable that
Wisconsin taxpayers would have to pay significantly more money to increase
the size of the program.
See Associated Press, “Group Files Suit Over Home-Care Waiting
Lists,” Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, May 19, 1999.