Opinion
3:12-cv-00181-RCJ-WGC
05-21-2019
Steven Kinford, Plaintiff, v. Social Security Administration, Defendant.
ORDER
The Plaintiff filed Motion for Approval of Rehabilitation (ECF No. 35). In the motion, the Plaintiff asks this Court to approve his pursuit of a college degree as a "rehabilitation program" for the purposes of Social Security benefits under 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1). In order to receive these benefits, the program must be approved by a "court of law." The federal courts of appeals have held that the phrase "court of law" does not allow for any federal district court to approve a rehabilitation program, rather, they have narrowly defined the phrase to include only the sentencing court. United States v. Osborne, 988 F.2d 47, 49 (7th Cir. 1993) ("'[A] court of law' must refer to the sentencing court."); Peeler v. Heckler, 781 F.2d 649, 652 (8th Cir. 1986). This Court agrees with the sound reasoning of these circuits.
The Plaintiff was convicted and sentenced by the state of Nevada; thus, the Plaintiff is in the wrong forum and must seek approval from that court system. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for being in the wrong forum. The Court further notes that the Plaintiff's likelihood of getting such approval from any court is dubious as the Plaintiff seeks payment to obtain a college degree as opposed to traditional notions of rehabilitation. See Borchelt v. Apfel, 25 F. Supp. 2d 1017, 1021 (E.D. Mo. 1998) (holding that the rehabilitation program must ameliorate the underlying disability that entitles one to Social Security benefits).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Rehabilitation (ECF No. 35) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 21st day of May, 2019.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge