Christos V. Georgiou v. Kenneth Apfel, (8th Cir. 2000)

Text

---

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-1886

Christos V. Georgiou, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, Appellee.

Submitted: October 19, 2000

Filed: November 14, 2000

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Christos V. Georgiou appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Missouri, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in GeorgiouÂ’s suit for greater retirement insurance benefits. Georgiou

sought credit for his earnings in Greece, while a Greek citizen, for the years 1950 through 1973; an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined, however, that Georgiou§ 433(c)(1)(A). We interpret the plain language of the Act as requiring only that totalization agreements contain a provision relating to the combination of periods of coverage, and not as mandating how such a provision should be worded or how periods of coverage must be combined. See United States v. Union Elec. Co., 64 F.3d 1152, 1165 (8th Cir. 1995) (in interpreting statutory language, court first looks to plain meaning of language).

We believe the Act is ambiguous, moreover, given its use of mandatory ("shall provide") and permissive ("may be combined") language and its failure to set greater parameters on combining coverage. See Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers AssÂ’n v. New Prime, Inc., 192 F.3d 778, 785 (8th Cir. 1999) (in construing inconsistently drafted statute, it is appropriate to use its legislative history to confirm most plausible construction of subsectionÂ’s plain language), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1671 (2000). The legislative history is instructive and shows that Congress intended benefits to be combined only when an individual would not have enough quarters of coverage under

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri

[UNPUBLISHED]

one system to qualify for benefits. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-670 (1994), 140 Cong. Rec. H6874 ("If an individual has worked under Social Security systems in both the U.S. and a foreign country with which the U.S. has [a totalization agreement], but has not worked long enough to qualify for a benefit, a totalization agreement allows the individual’s coverage under both systems to be combined, or ‘totalized,’ in order for one country (or both) to pay a benefit.").

We hold that the totalization agreement between the U.S. and Greece is consistent with the Act and its legislative history. The agreement contains a combination-of-periods-of-coverage provision as required by the Act, and it tracks the legislative history§ 413 (definition of quarter of coverage). Therefore, the totalization provision did not apply, and GeorgiouÂ’s Greek and U.S. credits were properly not combined.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

[1] The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mary Ann L. Medler, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

---