20 C.F.R. § 416.121

Receipt of aid or assistance for December 1973 under an approved State plan under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Recipient of aid or assistance defined. As used in this part 416, the term individual who was a recipient of aid or assistance for December 1973 under a State plan approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act means an individual who correctly received aid or assistance under such plan for December 1973 even though such aid or assistance may have been received subsequent to December 1973. It also includes an individual who filed an application prior to January 1974 and was otherwise eligible for aid or assistance for December 1973 under the provisions of such State plan but did not in fact receive such aid or assistance. It does not include an individual who received aid or assistance because of the provisions of 45 CFR 205.10(a) (pertaining to continuation of assistance until a fair hearing decision is rendered), as in effect in December 1973, and with respect to whom it is subsequently determined that such aid or assistance would not have been received without application of the provisions of such 45 CFR 205.10(a).

(b) Aid or assistance defined. As used in this part 416, the term aid or assistance means aid or assistance as defined in titles I, X, XIV, and XVI of the Social Security Act, as in effect in December 1973, and such aid or assistance is eligible for Federal financial participation in accordance with those titles and the provisions of 45 CFR chapter II as in effect in December 1973.

(c) Determinations of receipt of aid or assistance for December 1973. For the purpose of application of the provisions of this part 416, the determination as to whether an individual was a recipient of aid or assistance for December 1973 under a State plan approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act will be made by the Social Security Administration. In making such determination, the Social Security Administration may take into consideration a prior determination by the appropriate State agency as to whether the individual was eligible for aid or assistance for December 1973 under such State plan. Such prior determination, however, shall not be considered as conclusive in determining whether an individual was a recipient of aid or assistance for December 1973 under a State plan approved under title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act for purposes of application of the provisions of this part 416.

(d) Special provision for disabled recipients. For purposes of § 416.907, the criteria and definitions enumerated in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section are applicable in determining whether an individual was a recipient of aid or assistance (on the basis of disability) under a State plan approved under title XIV or XVI of the Act for a month prior to July 1973. It is not necessary that the aid or assistance for December 1973 and for a month prior to July 1973 have been paid under the State plan of the same State.

[39 FR 32024, Sept. 4, 1974; 39 FR 33207, Sept. 16, 1974, as amended at 51 FR 11719, Apr. 7, 1986]
Notes of Decisions
Emma J. Craigg, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Albert P. Russo, Dir., Dep't of Human Resources, 667 F.2d 153 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 416.121 (c) (1980). See notes 58-60 infra and accompanying text.”
Yulling v. Califano, 474 F. Supp. 601 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “20 C.F.R. § 416.121 (a). Defendant Secretary contends that while the New York plan was an “approved” plan, plaintiff has misconstrued the requirements of New York’s AABD program, and has not met the second requirement.”
Katz v. Harris, 493 F. Supp. 1304 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “20 C.F.R. § 416.121 (a). Plaintiff claims that the ALJ erroneously found her eligible for SSI benefits only in those months in which her savings did not exceed $1,500 (or $3,000 prior to April 1977).”
Sanders v. Sullivan, 756 F. Supp. 257 (W.D. Va. 1991). “The Secretary adopted a decision of a Law Judge who found that the farm was a non-excludable resource under 20 C.F.R. §§ 416.121 (a) and 416.1212(b).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.