QUESTION PRESENTED
You asked us for guidance in determining whether Title II benefits should be suspended
when individuals are under civil commitment at St. Peter Regional Treatment Center
pursuant to a court order finding the individual to be mentally ill and dangerous.
As explained below, we advise that, if an individual is committed as mentally ill
and dangerous with no criminal involvement, Title II benefits should not be suspended.
But if an individual is charged with a criminal offense and is found either (1) incompetent
to stand trial due to mental illness or deficiency, or (2) not guilty by reason of
mental illness or deficiency, Title II benefits should be suspended once the individual
has been under civil commitment at public expense for more than 30 continuous days.
LAW
I. Social Security Law and Policy
Pursuant to Public Law 106-170 (effective April 1, 2000), Section 202(x)(1) of the
Social Security Act (Act), as amended, provides in pertinent part:
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, no monthly benefits shall
be paid under this section or under section 423 of this title to any individual for
any month ending with or during or beginning with or during a period of more than
30 days throughout all of which such individual--
. . .
(ii) is confined by court order in an institution at public expense in connection
with--
(I) a verdict or finding that the individual is guilty but insane, with respect to
a criminal offense,
(II) a verdict or finding that the individual is not guilty of such an offense by
reason of insanity,
(III) a finding that such individual is incompetent to stand trial under an allegation
of such an offense, or
(IV) a similar verdict or finding with respect to such an offense based on similar
factors (such as a mental disease, a mental defect, or mental incompetence)[.]
. . .
(B)(ii) For purposes of clauses (ii) and (iii) of subparagraph (A), an individual
confined in an institution as described in such clause (ii) shall be treated as remaining
so 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.
Section 402(b) of Pub. L. 106-170 eliminated the requirement that an individual’s
confinement stem from a crime which is punishable by imprisonment for more than one
year (i.e., a felony) and replaced it with the requirement that the individual be confined for
30 days before SSA will suspend Title II benefits.
The POMS provisions concerning individuals confined as described in Section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii)
state that Title II benefits are suspended when:
-
1.
A court issues a verdict, finding, or ruling declaring the beneficiary:
-
A.
guilty but insane with respect to a criminal offense;
-
B.
not guilty of a criminal offense by reason of insanity;
-
C.
incompetent to stand trial under an allegation of a criminal offense; or
-
D.
determined to have a similar verdict or finding with respect to a criminal offense
based on similar factors (such as mental disease, mental defect, or mental incompetence);
and
-
2.
The institution officially confines the beneficiary at public expense for more than
30 continuous days.
POMS GN 02607.040C, GN 02607.310A.1.a. [1] Benefits must be suspended until the institution officially releases the beneficiary
from confinement and the institution ceases to provide for his basic living needs. See id.
For purposes of determining sanity, the court looks at the defendant’s mental condition
at the time of the alleged crime, whereas for purposes of determining competence to
stand trial, the court looks at the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the
court-ordered mental health examination (i.e., pre-trial). See POMS GN
02607.320A.1. A person found incompetent to stand trial is never convicted of a criminal offense.
See POMS GN 02607.001B.8; GN 02607.320A.1.
II. Minnesota Law
Minnesota law provides for the civil commitment of individuals who are legally found
to be “mentally ill and dangerous to the public” (MID). A person who is MID is defined
as a person:
(1) who is mentally ill [2] ; and
(2) who as a result of that mental illness presents a clear danger to the safety of
others as demonstrated by the facts that (i) the person has engaged in an overt act
causing or attempting to cause serious physical harm to another and (ii) there is
a substantial likelihood that the person will engage in acts capable of inflicting
serious physical harm on another.
Minn. Stat. § 253B.02 subd. 17.
Any interested party may start the civil commitment process by filing a petition in
court. See id. § 253B.07 subd. 2. After hearing the petition, if the court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the proposed patient is MID, “it shall commit the person to a secure
treatment facility or to a treatment facility willing to accept the patient under
commitment.” Id. § 253B.18 subd. 1(a).
The civil commitment of a person who is MID may occur as a result of a criminal case.
In civil commitment cases with criminal involvement, a criminal defendant has been
found either (1) incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness or deficiency, or
(2) not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency after a trial. See Minn.
Stat. § 611.026; Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.
Under Rule 20.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant is incompetent
to stand trial if he is incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense
due to mental illness or deficiency; such defendant shall not plead, be tried, or
be sentenced. If the court finds the defendant incompetent due to mental illness or
deficiency, either the criminal charge is dismissed or the proceedings are suspended,
depending on the circumstances. Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01 subd. 6(b), 8. In addition,
the court must commence a civil commitment proceeding or, if the defendant is already
under civil commitment, order the commitment to continue. Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.01
subd. 6(b)(1)-(2).
Under Rule 20.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant who goes
to trial may assert a defense of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.
If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency, the
court must commence a civil commitment proceeding or, if the defendant is already
under civil commitment, order the commitment to continue. Minn. R. Crim. P. 20.02
subd. 8(1)-(2). The Minnesota statute further provides that, “[i]n any case where
the [civil commitment] petition was filed immediately following the acquittal of the
proposed patient for a crime against the person [3] pursuant to a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, the verdict constitutes
evidence that the proposed patient is a person who is mentally ill and dangerous within
the meaning of this section.” Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 subd. 1(a).
DISCUSSION
The question is whether Title II benefits should be suspended in cases where beneficiaries
are under civil commitment at St. Peter Regional Treatment Center (SPRTC) as MID [4] pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 253B.18. The answer depends on whether the commitment is
related to a criminal matter. The two different types of situations and their effect
on the payment of Title II benefits are outlined below.
I. MID Civil Commitment Without Criminal Involvement
As indicated above, under the Minnesota civil commitment statute, any interested party
may file a petition for commitment. In cases with no criminal involvement, generally
either a family member or the treating hospital serves as the petitioner. See Minnesota Judicial Branch, Second District, Civil Commitment, at http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/ ?page=40 (last visited July 17, 2013); Ramsey County Attorney, Civil Commitment Unit, at http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/
attorney/civilcommitments.htm (last visited July 17, 2013); see also generally National Alliance on Mental Illness-Minnesota, Understanding the Minnesota Civil Commitment Process, at http://www.namihelps.org/assets/PDFs/civilcommitmentSinglePg102108.pdf (Dec. 19, 2006).
When there is no criminal involvement, there is no “verdict or finding . . . with
respect to a criminal offense,” as required for benefit suspension under the Act and
POMS. See Section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act; POMS GN 02607.310A.1.a. The only court proceedings are civil proceedings to determine whether a person should
be committed under Minn. Stat. ch. 253B. At the conclusion of the proceedings, if
the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the proposed patient is MID,
it will order the person to be committed to a treating hospital (usually SPRTC). See Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 subd. 1(a); Ramsey County Attorney, supra. Thus, for individuals who are under civil commitment at a mental health institution
with no criminal involvement, Title II benefits should not be suspended.
EXAMPLE: A probate court ordered Lisa Pringle committed as mentally ill, and she was
admitted to SPRTC. On a subsequent MID petition, the court found that Pringle was
MID and ordered her committed for an indeterminate period of time. The submitted materials
and the history provided in Pringle’s court appeal indicate that she was never charged
with any criminal offense, and that Regions Hospital was the petitioner in the MID
civil commitment proceeding. See In re Civil Commitment of Pringle, No. C1-02-1635, 2003 WL 174885 (Minn. App. Jan. 28, 2003). Accordingly, Pringle’s
benefits should not be suspended.
II. MID Civil Commitment With Criminal Involvement
As mentioned above, MID civil commitments may occur in connection with criminal cases
where the court finds a defendant either (1) incompetent to stand trial due to mental
illness or deficiency (Rule 20.01), or (2) not guilty by reason of mental illness
or deficiency (Rule 20.02). See also Minn. Stat. § 611.026 and Rule 20. In both instances, if the defendant is not already
under civil commitment, the court must commence a civil commitment proceeding.
Where there is criminal involvement, petitions for MID commitment are most often initiated
by the County Attorney’s Office, usually immediately after the finding of incompetency
or the verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency in the criminal
prosecution. See Ramsey County Attorney, supra. In particular, if a person was tried and acquitted of a certain type of crime (i.e., a “crime against the person”) as not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency,
the verdict constitutes evidence that he is MID. See Minn. Stat. § 253B.18 subd. 1(a).
If a defendant in a criminal case was found either (1) incompetent to stand trial
due to mental illness or deficiency, or (2) not guilty by reason of mental illness
or deficiency, and he also has been under civil commitment at a mental health institution at public
expense for more than 30 continuous days, the requirements for Title II benefit suspension
under the Act and POMS have been met. See Section 202(x)(1)(A)(ii)(III)-(IV) of the Act; POMS GN 02607.310A.1.a.
Benefits should continue to be suspended until the institution officially releases
the beneficiary and ceases to provide for his basic living needs. See Section 202(x)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act; POMS GN 02607.040C, GN 02607.310A.1.a & 3, GN 02607.330A.1 & 4. With respect to incompetency cases, the POMS states that, even if the criminal
charges are dismissed, that does not affect the beneficiary’s suspension status. POMS
GN 02607.330A.1. Such a beneficiary should thus remain in suspension status until the condition above
is met.
EXAMPLE: In October 2011, Felix pled guilty to a criminal offense. He was sentenced
to a two-year diversion program and five years of probation. In June 2012, the criminal
court issued a probation violation order. Around October 2012, the issue of Felix
competence to proceed was raised, and the criminal court commenced a competency proceeding
pursuant to Rule 20.01. Meanwhile, in December 2012 Felix was charged with three additional
criminal offenses; he was held in Anoka County Jail. In February 2013, a psychological
evaluation report was submitted to the criminal court in connection with the competency
proceeding, and the court found Felix incompetent to proceed. A petition for civil
commitment was filed that same day in probate court. In March 2013, the probate court
held a commitment hearing, and ordered Felix to be committed as mentally ill. He was
transferred from Anoka County Jail to SPRTC.
In this case, because of the criminal court’s finding that he was incompetent to proceed,
Felix was never tried on his probation violation or subsequent criminal charges. Instead,
he was committed as mentally ill at SPRTC. Felix meets the requirements for Title
II benefit suspension. That is, he was found incompetent to stand trial due to mental
illness in a criminal case, and he has been under civil commitment for more than 30
continuous days, presumably at public expense. Note that, for purposes of benefit
suspension, it does not matter if the criminal charges against Felix are later dismissed.
His benefits should continue to be suspended until SPRTC officially releases him and
ceases to provide for his basic living needs.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we advise that Title II benefits should be suspended
only when a beneficiary has been committed at an institution at public expense for
more than 30 continuous days, as a result of a court finding that the beneficiary
is incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness or deficiency, or verdict of not
guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency
Donna L. Calvert
Regional Chief Counsel, Region V
By: _____________
Cristine Bautista
Senior Counsel