Federally subsidized legal services programs nationwide engage in litigation that seeks to expand eligibility for public benefits, such as welfare, disability and unemployment benefits, on a case-by-case basis. In many instances, these suits ending up defending fraudulent, immoral and unhealthy conduct on the part of the people seeking benefits.
Legal Services Defends Stealing Candy
In a case of legal services
standing up for bad conduct, Westchester/Putnam Legal Services in White Plains,
New York sought unemployment benefits for a retail employee who was fired
stealing candy from his employer’s store. Errol Williams, who worked in
the tire department at a local Sam’s Club, was fired after he was caught eating
candy from a bag in another part of the store and then putting the bag back
where he found it. Not surpringly, the state Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board ruled that Williams was ineligible for unemployment benefits since his
misconduct was the cause of his dismissal. Legal services decided to
appeal this questionable case up to the state appeals court, which refused to
overturn the UIAB decision.
See Williams v. Commissioner of Labor, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7487 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d, June 24, 1999).
Legal Services Seeks ‘Black Lung’ Benefits for Long-Time Smoker
Client-Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia (CCLS) has a
long-standing practice of seeking black-lung disability benefits for Virginia
coal miners. In the case of Janie Bryant, CCLS sought survivors’ benefits
for Ms. Bryant based on the claim that her late husband had died of black lung
disease. As it turns out, however, two of three doctors who had
examined Mr. Bryant concluded that his lung disease occurred because Mr. Bryant
had a two-pack per day smoking habit for over forty years--and the third doctor
also found that Mr. Bryant’s smoking was at least a factor in his death.
In addition, the doctors found that Mr. Bryant’s obesity and heart conditions
probably contributed to his death. Despite this overwhelming evidence
against their client, CCLS chose to spend taxpayers’ dollars appealing this
virtually unwinnable case all the way to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond.
See Bryant v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 17886 (4th Cir., July 29, 1999).
Legal Services Fosters Apparent Welfare Scam
Florida Rural Legal
Services represented Gloria Medina in appealing her denial of food stamp and
state welfare benefits. Medina was denied benefits because she had
withdrawn $1,000 from her checking account just before applying for the benefits
and was unable to account for the money. The state Department of Children
and Families also disqualified Medina for future welfare eligibility for ninety
days. On appeal, legal services convinced the court to overturn the ninety
day penalty, even though the period had already expired, on the theory that
there was ‘insufficient evidence’ of Medina’s intent to violate the law.
By defending such obviously shady conduct in welfare benefits cases, legal
services contributes to making welfare much more expensive for taxpayers and
much less helpful to the poor.
See Medina v. Department of Children and Families, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9169 (Fla. App., July 9, 1999).
Legal Services Sues Over State Home-Care Program
Legal
Action of Wisconsin, which has repeatedly filed suits seeking to block
Wisconsin’s welfare reforms, is at it again. On May 17, 1999, Legal Action
sued the state over the Community Options Program, the state’s home-care program
for the low-income elderly and infirm. The suit claims the fact that there
is a waiting list to get into the program violates several federal laws,
including the Americans With Disabilities Act. If Legal Action’s suit is
successful, it is conceivable that Wisconsin taxpayers would have to pay
significantly more money to increase the size of the program.
See Associated Press, “Group Files Suit Over Home-Care Waiting Lists,”
Dubuque Telegraph-Herald, May 19, 1999.