20 C.F.R. § 416.1910

Requirements for interim assistance agreement

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

An interim assistance agreement must be in effect between us and the State if we are to repay the State for interim assistance. The following requirements must be part of the agreement:

(a) SSA to repay the State. We must agree to repay the State for interim assistance it gives you. Repayment to the State takes priority over any underpayments due you (see §§ 416.525 and 416.542).

(b) State to pay any excess repayment to you. The State must agree that, if we repay it an amount greater than the amount of interim assistance it gave to you, the State will—

(1) Pay the excess amount to you no later than 10 working days from the date the State receives repayment from us; or

(2) Refund the excess amount to us for disposition under the rules in subpart E of the this part on payment of benefits if the State cannot pay it to you (for example, you die or you move and the State cannot locate you).

(c) State to notify you. The State must agree to give you written notice explaining—

(1) How much we have repaid the State for interim assistance it gave you;

(2) The excess amount, if any, due you; and

(3) That it will give you an opportunity for a hearing if you disagree with State's actions regarding repayment of interim assistance.

(d) Duration of the agreement. We and the State must agree to the length of time that the agreement will remain in effect.

(e) State to comply with other regulations. The State must agree to comply with any other regulations that we find necessary to administer the interim assistance provisions.

Notes of Decisions
Randolph McCarthy Jr. v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. (85-1401), State of Michigan, Dep't of Soc. Servs., Vanburen Cnty. (85-1402), 793 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1986). “§ 1383 (g) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1910 1 , sent the claimants’ first SSI benefits checks, which include past due benefits, to the Michigan Department of Social Services (“DSS”) as repayment for interim assistance supplied by the State of Michigan during the pendency of the SSI…”
Matter of Baez v. Bane, 674 N.E.2d 268 (NY 1996). “greater than the amount of State interim assistance paid to the recipient, "the State (or political subdivision) shall pay to the individual the balance of such payment in excess of the reimbursable amount as expeditiously as possible, but in any event within ten working days or…”
Biggs v. Block, 629 F. Supp. 1574 (E.D.N.Y 1986). “20 C.F.R. § 416.1910 (b). II. Plaintiffs in this action are SSI recipients who, pursuant to the statutory and regulatory scheme outlined above, received Home Relief benefits while awaiting a determination of their eligibility for SSL After determining that each of the named…”
Baez v. Bane, 220 A.D.2d 166 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · cites it 2× “Within 10 working days after receipt of the SSI check, the local social services district is required to send the recipient an accounting of the amount deducted for reimbursement of interim assistance, and the excess, if any, of the SSI check over the amount of interim…”
Cabasquini v. Comm'r of Soc. Servs., 662 A.2d 145 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995). “Unlike the egregious mistakes in Baez, there is no evidence in this record showing any systematic and regular practices on the part of the defendant to violate the mandates of § 1383 (g) (4) (A) and 20 C.F.R. § 416.1910 (b) (1). The plaintiff also relies on Rivers v.”
Rivers v. Schweiker, 692 F.2d 871 (2d Cir. 1982). “§ 1383 (g)(4)(A) (1976), 20 C.F.R. § 416.1910 (b) (1982). The district court denied plaintiffs’ request for an injunction commanding the City defendant to remit to the recipient the entire SSI balloon check in the event the check is not processed within the statutory ten-day…”
Baez v. Bane, 159 Misc. 2d 838 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “Under Federal statute, payments due applicant must be made "as expeditiously as possible, but in any event within ten working days” ( 42 USC § 1383 [g] [4] [A]; 20 CFR 416.1910 [b] [1]). Pursuant to State regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.”
Dias v. Sacramento Cnty. Welfare Dep't (In re Dias), 70 B.R. 424 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1987). · cites it 2× “That form, and form PA 176-S discussed in the Vazquez cases, are essentially the same, and both were obviously drafted to comply with the regulations set forth at 20 C.F.R. § 416.1910 . 3 That section of the Federal Regulations was promulgated by the Secretary of Health,…”
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.