By: dmc-admin//February 18, 2002//
“In this case, the district court held, and we agree, that a representative payee’s decision to apply benefits to the recipient’s cost of care in a state institution does not amount to other legal process – even when the payee is the state itself. We decline to extend the Tidwell holding to cover such a circumstance. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Philpott and Bennett, which hold that just as other creditors do, a state creditor violates the anti-attachment provision when it at taches or subjects to other legal process a recipient’s benefits – simply do not apply here because no attachment or legal process took place. A properly appointed representative payee’s responsible management of a Social Security recipient’s benefits cannot amount to ‘other legal process,’ regardless of whether that payee is an arm of the state.”
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, McKinney, J., Flaum, J.