On May 27, 1992 in the class action White v. Sullivan, the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont invalidated the SSI policy of counting the dependent's portion of an augmented VA benefit paid to the veteran or veteran's surviving spouse as income to the dependent.

The White class consists of all SSI claimants and recipients who were residents of Vermont for one or more months since September 1989, and whose benefits were denied, reduced, or terminated because of the policy described in 1. above.

Based on the district court's order, SSA issued teletype EM-07-93, dated February 5, 1993, which furnished instructions for providing relief to individuals found to be classmembers.

In March 1993, central office sent SSIRDs to Vermont field offices for class members who were in payment status C01 or M01. The VA income of these class members was to be reposted to zero (0) effective 1/93.

On October 14, 1993, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the decision of the district court, in effect restoring national policy in the State of Vermont.

As a result of the circuit court decision, White class members who received relief based on the district court decision have been overpaid.

For any cases that were processed in accordance with the instructions provided in teletype EM-07-93 (i.e., the dependent's VA income was reduced to zero), restore the dependent's portion of the augmented VA benefit as income to the dependent on the SSR effective with the month of input. Do not revise any posted income for months prior to the month of input . Send the individual a completed copy of the notice in E.1. below.

Continue to process these cases under the national instructions in POMS SI 00830.314.

Deem the overpaid person without fault and deem recovery to be “against equity and good conscience” with respect to any overpayment caused by the White decision because the overpayment was based on reversal of a prior policy per GN 02250.325. Document the file with a completed copy of the overprinted Report of Contact in E.2. below whether or not the SSR reflects an overpayment.

If restoration of gross income causes N01 (excess income) status in the current month, the SSR may reflect an overpayment in the month of input and the following month. Process these overpayments as follows:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

FO Street Address

City/State/Zip Code

Telephone:

Claim Number:

Date:

Name

Address

City/State/Zip Code

We are changing your supplemental security income (SSI) payment because of a decision in the White court case. This case was about how we figure SSI payments for a spouse or child of an individual receiving Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits.

Sometimes the VA pays more money to a person who has a spouse, or child than to someone who has no dependent family members. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has said that we can count as your income the part of the VA benefit of ____(1)____ that was paid for you. While the court was making its decision, we were not counting the money ___(1)___ received from the VA because you ___(2)___ ___(3)___ dependent. Since we must now begin to count that money as yours, your SSI will change.

You will receive another letter shortly telling you:

• •

  the amount of your new SSI payment and the month your SSI will change,

• •

  the amount of the VA benefit which we used to figure your SSI, and

• •

  what to do if you disagree with our decision.

SSA-L8165

If You Have Any Questions

If you have any questions, you may call, write, or visit any Social Security Office. If you call or visit our office, please have this letter with you and ask for ___(4)___. The telephone number is shown at the top of this letter.

Manager's Name

Title

Fill-ins:

1 - name of veteran/surviving spouse)

2 - are/were

3 - individual

4 - contact person

The above-cited individual was overpaid for the period ___MM/YY___ through ___MM/YY___ due to the original decision in the White v. Sullivan court case and its subsequent implementation in the State of Vermont. Recovery of this overpayment will not be pursued because the individual is deemed without fault and recovery is deemed to be against equity and good conscience per GN 02250.325.