This regional opinion provides information on whether to continue to suspend monthly Title II benefits when you receive notification of a change in commitment status from criminal to civil under Missouri State law. The opinion explains that in Missouri, after a court drops a person’s criminal charges and that person’s commitment becomes “civil” or “voluntary” instead of “criminal,” the person’s Title II benefits remain suspended until the institution “officially releases” the beneficiary and ceases to provide the beneficiary with his or her basic living needs.

Issue Presented

Whether a claimant, who is found incompetent to stand trial and committed to a mental-health institution by a guardian pursuant to Missouri Revised Statutes § 552.020.11(6), is eligible for benefits reinstatement due to a change in her commitment status from criminal to civil under Chapter 475 and section 632.120.

Short Answer

We conclude that a change in commitment status does not permit benefits reinstatement when, as in this case, the claimant remains confined by court order in an institution at public expense.

Factual Background

C~'s (the claimant’s) disability insurance benefits under Title II were suspended effective October 2006, after the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis determined she was “incompetent to proceed” in relation to her criminal charges and committed her to Fulton State Hospital (FSH). On November XX, 2007, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis Probate Division (Probate Division) entered Judgment finding that the claimant was totally incapacitated due to a mental or physical condition and was unable to care for herself. Because of her total incapacity, the Public Administrator for the City of St. Louis, was appointed as her guardian under Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 475 (Probate code). The Probate Division found that the claimant’s condition required placement in a supervised living situation to be selected by her guardian. It also ordered the guardian to file an annual report to apprise it of the claimant’s status. On January XX, 2008, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered a Judgment and Order to Dismiss Charges. In its order, the Court found that the claimant lacked the mental fitness to proceed in the criminal matter and there was no substantial probability that she would be mentally fit to proceed in the future. Therefore, the Court dismissed the criminal charges without prejudice pursuant to section 552.020.11(6) of the Missouri Revised Statutes. The Court also took judicial notice of the Probate Division’s finding that the claimant was incapacitated. According to hand-written notations on the January 2008 Order, the claimant’s commitment at FSH changed from “Incompetent to Proceed” to Voluntary by Guardian effective January XX, 2008. The claimant remained at FSH until April XX, 2011, when she was transferred to St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center (SLPRC). Both FSH and SLPRC are operated by the Missouri Department of Mental Health. See https://dmh.mo.gov/mentalillness/mohealthhomes.html . SLPRC provides “long-term inpatient psychiatric treatment and psychosocial rehabilitation services to adults . . . who are recovering from a severe and persistent mental illness for which they were criminally committed.” https://dmh.mo.gov/slprc/ .On April 29, 2011, the Reimbursement Officer for SLPRC, requested that the agency reinstate the claimant’s Title II benefits based on the claimant’s change in status to “Voluntary by Guardian.” Attached documentation noted the following potential payers for the claimant’s care: MST (likely Missouri State Treasurer), Insurance Plan, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and SSA. The documentation also noted that the claimant’s current care fell under the Missouri Department of Mental Health’s Comprehensive Psychiatric Services (CPS) Division. See https://dmh.mo.gov/docs/acronyms.pdf.. We assume that the agency did not reinstate benefits in response to this request. In a Judgment dated June XX, 2016, the Probate Division identified the claimant as its ward. It ordered that costs associated with the claimant’s probate matter be paid by the City of St. Louis. On April XX, 2017, the Public Administrator for the City of St. Louis, was substituted for as the claimant’s guardian.

Analysis

Section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(A)(ii)(III), prohibits payment of Title II benefits to an individual who “is confined by court order in an institution at public expense in connection with– . . . a finding that [the] individual is incompetent to stand trial under an allegation of [a criminal] offense.” An individual remains confined until “(I) he or she is released from the care and supervision of such institution, and (II) such institution ceases to meet the individual’s basic living needs.” 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1)(B)(ii)(I and II). The purpose of section 402( x) is to “deny benefits to those persons whose needs are being provided at public expense due to their confinement.” Wilkins v. Callahan, 127 F.3d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir. 1997).

 

Missouri law sets forth the procedure for committing individuals to state facilities when they have been deemed incompetent to stand trial. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.020.11(6). When an individual lacks the mental fitness to proceed in a criminal matter and is unlikely to be competent to proceed in the future, then the court shall dismiss the criminal charges only if the accused is involuntarily detained under Chapter 632 or deemed incapacitated under Chapter 475 and committed to a mental-health facility by a guardian pursuant to section 632.120. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 552.020.11(6); State v. Moore, 952 S.W.2d 812, 814 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (discussing subsection (6)).

 

Program Operations Manual System (POMS) GN 02607.330 outlines agency policy for individuals determined Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) by courts. If after a court drops criminal charges and the claimant’s commitment becomes “civil” or “voluntary” instead of criminal, the claimant’s benefits remain suspended until the institution “officially releases” the beneficiary and ceases to provide him or her with basic living needs. See POMS GN 02607.330.A.

 

Since 2006, the claimant has been confined to state institutions.^[1] In addition, all available evidence indicates that the claimant’s basic living needs are provided by the state institution at the public expense. See POMS GN 02607.850.A.1.b (basic living needs means the institution provides the inmate with food, clothing, and shelter)^[2] . Although the claimant’s commitment status was changed from criminal to incapacitated under Chapter 475, a change in commitment status does not permit resumption of benefits unless the institution releases the beneficiary and ceases to provide for her basic needs. See

§ 402(x)(1)(B)(ii); POMS GN 02607.330.A. Because the claimant remains incapacitated and confined to a public institution and held at the public expense, her Title II benefits should remain in suspense.

Conclusion

Based on the information you have given us, we believe you would be justified in concluding that the claimant’s benefits should remain in suspense.

This opinion provides guidance into a new confinement category that is known as “supervised probation.” Based on our Social Security regulations in section 20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a), supervised probation constitutes confinement in a correctional institution. This is because a beneficiary is residing in a residential treatment program that is under a state’s Department of Corrections control and the beneficiary is not allowed to leave this program until his or her completion. If both of these facts are evident, we will continue to suspend monthly benefits as long as the beneficiary is on supervised probation in a state Department of Corrections’ residential treatment program.

Issues Presented

You asked for advice as to whether R~’s supervised probation constitutes confinement requiring a suspension of benefits. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that R~’s supervised probation constitutes confinement in a penal institution as defined in the regulations and that his benefits should be suspended.

Factual Background

The memorandum you sent with your request and Missouri court docket entries indicate that R~ was convicted of a felony for Driving While Intoxicated as an aggravated offender. On January XX, 2014, he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. In April 2014, the court ordered supervision by the Board of Probation and Parole effective May XX, 2014. As a special condition of his probation, R~ was to be screened for eligibility to enter the Drug Court program. R~ is currently located at the Western Reception & Diagnostic Correctional Center (Center) in St. Joseph, Missouri. According to the Missouri Department of Corrections website, the Center is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and is classified as a minimum security and diagnostic facility.

Based on information in your memorandum, personnel at the Center stated that a condition of R~’s probation is that he completes a residential treatment program for substance abuse.

The information you provided also indicated that R~ is not free to leave the treatment facility until he completes the treatment program.

Analysis

The regulations provide that:

No monthly benefits will be paid to any individual for any month any part of which the individual is confined in a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility for conviction of a felony. This rule applies to disability benefits (§ 404.315) and child’s benefits based on disability (§ 404.350) effective with benefits payable for months beginning on or after October 1, 1980. For all other monthly benefits, this rule is effective with benefits payable for months beginning on or after May 1, 1983. However, it applies only to the prisoner; benefit payments to any other person who is entitled on the basis of the prisoner’s wages and self-employment income are payable as though the prisoner were receiving benefits.

20 C.F.R. § 404.468(a).

The regulations define confinement as:

In general, a jail, prison, or other penal institution or correctional facility is a facility which is under the control and jurisdiction of the agency in charge of the penal system or in which convicted criminals can be incarcerated. Confinement in such a facility continues as long as the individual is under a sentence of confinement and has not been released due to parole or pardon. An individual is considered confined even though he or she is temporarily or intermittently outside of that facility (e.g., on work release, attending school, or hospitalized).

20 C.F.R. § 404.468(c).

It is clear that R~ was convicted of a felony. Therefore, the issue is whether he is under confinement as defined in the regulations. As stated above, the Center is under the control and jurisdiction of the Missouri Department of Corrections and serves as a facility for incarceration. Thus, the Center is a penal institution or correctional facility. Additionally, as a condition of his probation, R~ is not free to leave the facility until he completes the treatment program. Finally, he has not been released due to parole or pardon. Thus, R~ is confined in a penal institution for purposes of the Social Security Act (Act) and regulations, and he is not entitled to receive benefits until he is released from the treatment facility.

While this is not a frequently litigated issue, both the Tenth Circuit and Seventh Circuit have found that the agency properly suspended benefits in similar situations. The Tenth Circuit found that the agency properly suspended benefits for a beneficiary confined to a security hospital following a felony conviction. See Wilkins v. Callahan, 127 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 1997). In Davel v. Sullivan, 902 F.2d 559 (7th Cir. 1990), the court held that the agency properly suspended benefits for a beneficiary who was concurrently serving a criminal sentence and a civil commitment at a mental health facility under the control of the Department of Health and Social Services. These cases provide additional support for the conclusion that R~ is confined in a penal institution as defined in the Act and regulations.

CONCLUSION

In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that, based on the evidence you provided, R~ is confined as a result of his felony conviction. Should additional evidence become available, please feel free to contact us for further advice.