Yet Another Court Rejects SSA’s ‘Fleeing’ Rule

Another court has rejected the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) position that it can suspend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to a person who is "fleeing to avoid prosecution" for a felony.

Another court, this time in Tennessee, has rejected the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) position that it can suspend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits by relying on the existence of an outstanding arrest warrant alone to conclude that a person falls within the statutory prohibition on payment of benefits to a person who is “fleeing to avoid prosecution” for a felony. Caldwell v. Astrue, 2008 WL 2713714 (E.D. Tenn. July 10, 2008). The court relied on the SSI regulation, 20 CFR 416.1339(b)(1), which “requires a court finding that the person is fleeing,” as well as on Sixth Circuit caselaw interpreting the similar language in the federal criminal law provision for tolling the statute of limitations when someone is “fleeing justice.”  18 U.S.C. 3290. Mr. Caldwell said he left California after being questioned by police, not because he was fleeing to avoid prosecution, but rather out of fear for his safety because of threats made by the individuals involved in the criminal matter.

The court was also persuaded by the similarity of the facts in the case to those in Blakely v. Commissioner, 330 F. Supp.2d 910 (W.D. Mich. 2004), in that the plaintiff offered to return to California to answer the charges, but that he needed some help if he was to be able to do so. The court noted that Mr. Caldwell requires the use of oxygen all the time and would require about 18 oxygen tanks for a three day bus trip to California.

The Caldwell decision joins a growing body of caselaw uniformly ruling against SSA on its interpretation of the “fleeing to avoid prosecution” provision and is the third such case in the courts of the Sixth Circuit alone.