Opinion
No. 7158.
May 18, 1953. Motion for Rehearing Overruled June 15, 1953.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, STODDARD COUNTY, JAMES V. BILLINGS, J.
Not to be published in State Reports.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Clarence A. Powell, Dexter, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court, reversing a decision of the Director of The State Department of Public Health and Welfare, which reduced the allowance of old age assistance from $41 to $31 a month for each of the pensioners.
The record before us is not large but the facts are stated in such general language, it is difficult to understand them. We recognize that hearings upon the refusal, granting or reduction of old age assistance are somewhat informal, but they come to this court on the printed record and, generally, the facts are not fully related. It seems to us that it would be a rather simple matter to develop all the facts in the hearing before the referee so that when and if the case is appealed, the director, the circuit court and this court would have them in detailed and understandable form.
As we read the record, there is not much dispute in the evidence. The claims were tried together. Mr. and Mrs. Hagy had been approved for a grant of $41 each per month in September, 1941 and September, 1944, respectively. At the time of the decision of the Department in this case, September 27, 1951, claimant Joseph Green Hagy was 84 years of age and his wife, Nellie B. Hagy was 72. They lived alone on a 37-acre farm about 4 1/2 miles south of Dexter, Missouri. It was conceded the farm was worth less than $3,750. Mr. Hagy was infirm and unable to work, except he and his wife jointly cooked their meals occasionally. Shortly before the hearing he had had pneumonia and Mrs. Hagy has been a cripple for three or four years, using a wheel chair, and crutches to get about, and was afflicted with asthma, from the effects of which she had been confined to her bed from December to May of 1951. Their farm was rented to Wilson Leffler, who paid a crop rent of one-fifth on ten acres of cotton and one-fourth on four acres of corn, which the year before had produced an income of approximately $203 for petitioners. Mr. Leffler testified that for the present year, it would be about the same. They had no other income. They owed $3 or $4 for groceries at Dexter. Mr. Leffler visited the old couple frequently, had taken them milk and butter, had mowed the weeds, in the past year had taken them to the doctor and grocery store eighteen or nineteen times, for all of which they paid him nothing as they didn't have the money. In bad slippery weather he carried their wood into the house for them.
Mr. Hagy testified that his doctor bills for the year up to the hearing was about $113, which included $42 for a practical nurse for six weeks. He had an attack of pneumonia from March 24th to April 5th, "the worst spell of sickness I have ever had." He introduced in evidence a receipt from Dr. T. L. Waddel for $45 and one from Dr. S. T. Cannon for $20, each dated May 12, 1951. His taxes for the year were $12.44. To pay the doctors he had borrowed from his tenant Mr. Leffler $75 and owed him $3.75 for chickens, being a total of $78.75. (Mr. Leffler testified this would be deducted from the rent.) He paid annually $16.60 for a telephone, $12.20 per year for insurance on the property and $43.40 for hospital insurance. He had also paid $30 to a laborer for chopping down weeds and he stated that his buildings and fences now needed repairing.
The budget made by the Division of Welfare listed his total monthly expense at $78.91 and his net income at $16.91, thereby leaving a deficit of $62 or $31 each. The crop rent was listed at $203 for the year or $16.91 income for the month. Taxes were listed at $10.44, insurance at $14.34 and (under the general heading "shelter") their repairs at $18.
The tenant, Mr. Leffler, testified that the dry weather had withered this year's cotton, the bolls were falling off and the corn crop appeared to be "very sorry".
The case worker testified that she estimated the total personal requirements of each of the applicants at $63.24 per month and that she arrived at this amount from standard figures sent out to her from the State Office at Jefferson City. These estimates from Jefferson City also allowed food for Mr. Hagy in the sum of $18.63 per month, for Mrs. Hagy, $17.18, the monthly clothing allowance for Mr. Hagy was $4.35 and for Mrs. Hagy, $5.75. Listed also as personal expense for the husband was $1.25 and the wife, $2.30. Life insurance is listed at 28 per month for Mrs. Hagy, but no insurance for hospitalization is included in the budget for either of them. Mr. Hagy $1.90. Monthly medical expense was listed for Mrs. Hagy at $7, none for Mr. Hagy, and the case worker testified that she arrived at this figure by talking to one of Mr. Hagy's doctors. He told her it "would probably average that (monthly) throughout the year." The doctor did not appear as a witness. The case worker had never heard of Dr. Cannon at that time.
The record shows the following in her cross examination:
"Q. Mrs. Matthews, I see you have telephone 85 ¢ a month. Where do you get that? A. I believe that is what they told me their telephone exchange rate is. I didn't include repairs or anything like, I don't believe, in that.
"Q. But he shows $16.80? A. That is for 18 months though, isn't it?
"Q. Did you take into consideration the amount he paid for fertilizer last year and expenses on the farm, $55.00? A. I don't have that, no, sir." (Italics ours.)
She also testified that she didn't take into consideration medical bills while Mr. Hagy was sick in March and April, saying, "We can't allow those bills where they are already paid," even though he used pension money to pay it. Upon being asked why they couldn't be allowed, she testified:
"A. Our State law says that if they are under the regular care of a doctor then we can allow that medical expense, however much it amounts to a month, but for those that have been incurred and already paid we can make no allowance for those."
The budget sheet gives his total income as crop rent of $203 per year or $16.91 per month, when the undisputed evidence shows that they will not receive that much. They would receive $78.75 less than $203 or $124.25, or $10.35 1/2 per month and this is their total income. The undisputed evidence shows that the taxes for the year were $12.44, but the budget prepared by the case worker without any explanation, places the taxes at $10.44. $18 were allowed for repairs while the undisputed evidence shows Mr. Hagy paid $30 for labor in keeping up his property. Electric lights were listed at $3.75 when a mathematical calculation shows it should be $3.77+. Her explanation for putting in the telephone bill at 85 ¢ per month was that she believed that is what "they" told her their telephone exchange rate was. From her testimony, the amount allowed Mr. Hagy for food, $18.63, was a standard figure applicable to any family of this size and composition. This seems to be an arbitrary figure set and used by the department and apparently would apply to persons living next door to a Super Market or to those individuals like Mr. and Mrs. Hagy, who lived several miles from a town and were compelled to depend on county stores or sympathetic and charitable neighbors to take them to town.
The statutes, Sections 208.010 and 208.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., provide: "The amount of benefits when added to all other income, resources, support and maintenance shall provide such persons with reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health." (Italics ours.) The minimum requirements would be sufficient shelter, food, clothing and medical attention. Hooks v. State Social Security Comm., Mo.App., 165 S.W.2d 267. The inference to be drawn from the case worker's testimony is that if the applicants had not paid their doctor bills, they would have been considered as a necessary expense and their allowance raised accordingly. Although the advancement was a payment on the annual rent, and was used to pay doctor bills that the state would have otherwise allowed as expenditures, it was charged as income and no allowance made for the payment of the doctor bills. Applicants should get the benefit of these payments one way or the other, either as a reduction on income or as an approved expenditure.
The evidence seems to show, also, that Mr. Hagy had paid $55 for fertilizer and expenses on the farm which was not taken into consideration. On the coming year, the tenant was to furnish the fertilizer which would consequently reduce the amount of rent that applicants would get.
Upon appeal to the circuit court, the opinion of the State Department of Public Health and Welfare was reversed and we think under the facts of this case that judgment was correct. The undisputed facts should take precedence over the arbitrary figures in the budget prepared by the case worker. Foster v. State Social Security Comm., Mo.App., 187 S.W.2d 870.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed because we believe the decision of the director was arbitrary and unreasonable in following the budget prepared by the case worker and ignoring the undisputed facts in this case. The proceedings are remanded for redetermination of the issues by said director.
BLAIR and McDOWELL, JJ., concur.