F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
OCT 23 1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
BRETT E. WILKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-3020
JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security, *
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. No. 96-4006-SAC)
Submitted on the briefs:
Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, Topeka, Kansas, for Plaintiff-
Appellant.
Jackie N. Williams, United States Attorney, Jackie A. Rapstine, Assistant United
States Attorney, Topeka, Kansas (Frank V. Smith, III, Chief Counsel, Region VII,
Social Security Administration, and Rhonda J. Wheeler, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Kansas City, Missouri, of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.
*
Effective March 31, 1995, the functions of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services in social security cases were transferred to the Commissioner
of Social Security. P.L. No. 103-296. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), John J.
Callahan, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, is substituted for Donna E.
Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the defendant in this action.
Before TACHA, McKAY, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
TACHA, Circuit Judge.
Claimant Brett E. Wilkins appeals from the district court’s judgment
affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security which rejected
claimant’s challenge to the agency’s suspension of his disability benefits,
originally awarded in 1989 with an onset date of 1970. 2 In early 1992, claimant
pled guilty to and was convicted on one felony count of forgery pursuant to Kan.
Stat. Ann. § 21-3710. The state trial court originally sentenced him to a term of
incarceration of from one to two years, subject to modification after evaluation.
See Appellant’s App. at 52. After a hearing and review of a report from the State
Reception and Diagnostics Center, the state trial court ordered claimant
committed to the Larned State Security Hospital, instead, “for psychiatric care,
treatment and maintenance . . . until further order of this Court or until discharge .
. . .” Id. at 61-62. Claimant was transferred to Larned in May of 1992. That
2
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Claimant’s motion for
oral argument is denied.
-2-
same month, the Social Security Administration suspended claimant’s disability
benefits based on his felony conviction, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1). 3
Claimant was discharged from Larned in November of 1993, and placed on one
year’s unsupervised probation. His Social Security disability benefits were
reinstated upon his release. He challenged the agency’s decision to deny him
benefits during the eighteen-month period he was at Larned, both administratively
and through review by an administrative law judge (ALJ). He argued that the
agency wrongly applied § 402(x) to deny him benefits, noting that the Veteran’s
Administration (VA) had not suspended payment of his veteran’s benefits while
he was at Larned.
3
Section 402(x)(1), in pertinent part as it existed in 1992, provided
that:
[N]o monthly benefits shall be paid . . . to any individual for any
month during which such individual is confined in a jail, prison, or
other penal institution or correctional facility, pursuant to his
[felony] conviction . . . unless such individual is actively and
satisfactorily participating in a rehabilitation program which has been
specifically approved for such individual by a court of law and, as
determined by the [Commissioner] is expected to result in such
individual being able to engage in substantial gainful activity upon
release and within a reasonable time.
Section 402(x) was amended in 1994, as discussed further herein. The applicable
agency regulation is found at 20 C.F.R. § 404.468.
-3-
The ALJ concluded that 1) claimant’s commitment to Larned was the same
as confinement under § 402(x), 2) this interpretation of § 402(x) was not
unreasonable or contrary to Congressional intent, 3) the statute’s rehabilitation
exception did not apply here because the treatment claimant received at Larned
was not an approved vocational rehabilitation program under the statute, and
4) the VA’s decision was not binding on the agency. See Appellant’s App. at
24-28.
The district court affirmed the ALJ’s ruling. The district court also
rejected claimant’s argument that the 1994 amendments to § 402(x) demonstrated
his benefits should not have been suspended in 1992, an argument the ALJ did not
expressly address.
Our jurisdiction over this appeal arises from 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the agency’s decision to suspend disability benefits to determine whether the
factual findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a
whole and whether the correct legal standards were applied. See Castellano v.
Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 26 F.3d 1027, 1028 (10th Cir. 1994).
Claimant’s arguments challenge the agency’s interpretation of § 402(x) and its
corresponding regulation, therefore our review is highly deferential. See New
Mexico Dept. of Human Servs. v. Department of Health & Human Servs. Health
Care Fin. Admin., 4 F.3d 882, 884-85 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding appellate court
-4-
must give agency’s interpretation of statutory provision it administers “controlling
weight unless [it is] arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute”);
Colorado Dep’t of Social Servs. v. United States Dep’t of Health & Human
Servs., 29 F.3d 519, 522 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding substantial deference given to
an agency’s interpretation and application of its own regulations).
Claimant argues that his commitment to Larned was not the equivalent of
confinement or imprisonment, based on Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3430, the state trial
court’s order of commitment, its decision to place claimant on probation, and its
subsequent journal entry form. These arguments miss the mark. As the district
court noted in its decision, the State’s terminology does not bind the Social
Security Administration to a certain interpretation of a federal statute. Further,
claimant cites no authority to support his position. See Phillips v. Calhoun, 956
F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).
Claimant also argues that case law supports his contention that his
commitment was not confinement, citing Graves v. Heckler, 607 F. Supp. 1186
(D. D.C. 1985). As in Graves, claimant here was not free to leave Larned.
However, unlike in Graves, claimant here was not acquitted of his crime by
reason of insanity. We agree with the ALJ and the district court that this case is
more similar to Davel v. Sullivan, 902 F.2d 559 (7th Cir. 1990), in which the
-5-
Seventh Circuit concluded that the claimant’s placement in a mental institution
following a felony conviction constituted confinement under § 402(x).
Claimant asserts that the agency should follow the Veteran’s
Administration’s (VA) decision to continue his benefits while at Larned.
Petitioner correctly states that the VA’s decision “is entitled to some weight and
should be considered.” Appellant’s Br. at 12. It is clear that the agency in this
case did recognize and consider the VA’s decision, as it is discussed by both the
ALJ and the district court. More is not required; no legal error exists.
Claimant contends that the underlying purpose of the Social Security Act,
to provide benefits to disabled workers, is not violated by his receipt of benefits
while committed to Larned. This argument both cuts too broadly and misstates
the applicable standard. The standard of review here is whether the agency’s
interpretation, not petitioner’s position, is reasonable and comports with the
statute. Further, the statutory provision at issue here is not the Social Security
Act in general; it is § 402(x). The purpose of § 402(x), to deny benefits to those
persons whose needs are being provided at public expense due to their
confinement, is furthered by the agency’s interpretation in this case.
Claimant points to the 1994 amendment to § 402(x), which denies benefits
to criminally insane persons confined by court order at public expense. He argues
that this amendment demonstrates that persons in his circumstances before the
-6-
amendment became effective should not be denied benefits. Based on the
legislative history of the amendment, the district court concluded that the
amendment “closed a perceived gap” that had allowed persons who had been
found guilty but insane, not guilty by reason of insanity, or incompetent to stand
trial, to continue receiving benefits. District Court Order at 19. We agree with
the district court that claimant does not fall into any of these categories. He was
found guilty of a felony, but was not adjudged insane. Therefore, the 1994
amendment to § 402(x) does not demonstrate his entitlement to benefits in 1992.
Accordingly, under these facts, we conclude that the agency’s interpretation
and application of § 402(x) and its corresponding regulation, as they existed in
1992, is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the statute itself. Therefore, we also
conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision, and that the
correct legal standards were applied. The December 19, 1996, judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
-7-