Martinez v. Colorado Department Of Human Services

97 P.3d 152 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and applied to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. His application was denied. P retained an attorney to represent him in an appeal of that denial. P then applied for interim assistance under the state's Aid to the Needy Disabled (AND) program. P executed an 'Authorization for Reimbursement of Interim Assistance,' in which he authorized SSA to send his first post eligibility payment of SSI benefits to D 'in consideration for the public assistance benefits paid to me' by the county under the state AND program. He authorized the county to deduct from that SSI payment the amount of interim assistance he had received from the state. P's SSI appeal was successful. He was awarded SSI benefits retroactive to the date he became eligible for them, as well as prospective benefits of $482 per month. SSA sent a check for $5,069 to D. The county retained the full amount as reimbursement for the interim assistance benefits it had paid to P. P administratively appealed contending D had been unjustly enriched by retaining the entire amount of his retroactive SSI benefits without paying a share of the legal fees he incurred and paid in successfully appealing SSA's initial denial of benefits. An administrative law judge agreed and issued an initial decision D to reduce the recoupment from P's retroactive SSI payment by twenty-five percent, or $1,267. The DHS office of appeals reversed the initial decision and entered summary judgment for D. P filed a petition for judicial review and class action complaint in district court, asserting claims for declaratory relief, restitution based on unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. D filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. The AND benefits were a loan from the state, repayable when and if the applicant received SSI, rather than a contract. P appealed.