{
  "id": 2769729,
  "name": "Nancy DAVIS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Department of Health & Social Services",
  "decision_date": "1972-07-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 859",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 N.M. 79"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "499 P.2d 1001"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.676,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.816683355863567e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7186112008846848
    },
    "sha256": "27ac77f67c3527d997b26e7a425906edaadfe9bf2ac3e7a9152cc214f6c436bf",
    "simhash": "1:b539d4a6c298f504",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:55.751115+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and SUTIN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Nancy DAVIS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCOWAN, Judge.\nMiss Davis appeals from a decision of the New Mexico Health and Social Services Department (department) discontinuing her assistance under the Aid to the Aged, Blind and Disabled (AABD).\nWe reverse.\nAfter a fair hearing and an evaluation by the Medical Review Team the department concluded that assistance then being paid to Miss Davis should be discontinued because\n\u201c . . the medical information . did not establish a total disability.\u201d\nMiss Davis does not contest this finding but asserts \u201cthat the conclusion reached is arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence based on the record as a whole.\u201d We agree that the conclusion was arbitrary. We also hold it not in accordance with the department regulations.\nThe standard entitling a recipient to disability assistance under AABD is determined by department regulation to be:\n\u201c231.54 \u2014 DISABILITY\n\u201c231.541 \u2014 DEFINITION\u2014To be eligible for AABD on the condition of disability the person must be suffering from a permanent physiological, mental or psychological impairment that, when considered in connection with the pertinent socio-economic conditions, results in his being substantially unable to engage in employment or homemaking within his remaining ability.\n\u201c231.542 \u2014 INTERPRETATION \u2014 \u2018Physiological, mental or psychological impairment\u2019 includes: injury[,] illness or disease, or their residual effects; mental deficiency or mental retardation; and, psychosis, neurosis (psychoneurosis) or personality disorders.\n\"A \u2018permanent\u2019 impairment is one which is not likely to respond to any known therapeutic procedure, is likely to remain unchanged, or may become progressively worse because the only knonw [sic] therapeutic procedures to which it may be amenable are unavailable, inadvisable or may be reasonably refused.\n\u201cTo be \u2018substantially unable to engage in employment\u2019 means the client, by virtue of his permanent impairment, and taking into consideration his remaining abilities is substantially precluded from engaging in a useful occupation.\n\u201cTo be \u2018substantially unable to engage .in home making\u2019 means the client by virtue of his permanent impairment and taking into consideration his remaining abilities is substantially precluded from engaging in home making activities for other members of the client\u2019s household.\u201d\nWe hold the department\u2019s conclusion arbitrary because it shows to have been based solely upon \u201cmedical information\u201d, there being no indication that consideration was given to \u201cthe pertinent socio-economic conditions\u201d as required by Regulation 231.541, supra. It is also erroneous in that it adopts a standard of total disability rather than the standard prescribed by the department regulations, supra.\nThe decision of the department to discontinue Miss Davis\u2019 assistance is set aside and the case is remanded with instructions to enter a new decision and order in accordance with the law and the regulations of the department.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and SUTIN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "COWAN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Earl Wylie Potter, Legal Aid Society of Santa Fe, Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James G. Huber, Agency Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "499 P.2d 1001\nNancy DAVIS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, Appellee.\nNo. 859.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 21, 1972.\nEarl Wylie Potter, Legal Aid Society of Santa Fe, Santa Fe, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James G. Huber, Agency Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 236
}