It’s a testament to perseverance that Ricky Arnaz Crawford reached his late 20s before the voices in his head forced him out of steady employment.
Now he’s landed in a bureaucratic snafu on its way to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The Missouri Division of Employment Security is pursuing Crawford for $3,000 – the amount of it says Crawford was overpaid while collecting unemployment in 2009-10.
Crawford, a diagnosed schizophrenic, received the jobless benefits prior to a determination by another agency, the federal Social Security Administration, that he is “not mentally capable of full-time competitive employment.”
The finding enables Crawford to collect government payments for the disabled.
His attorneys contend the state erred in calculating the alleged overpayment.
“He didn’t get any more than he was entitled to, because it was Social Security that reduced the benefit by the amount of his unemployment,” says John Ammann, the director of the St. Louis University Legal Clinic.
Further, they argue, Crawford shouldn’t be on the hook even if he were overpaid – it was the government’s mistake, not his.
“Everybody understands that Arnaz Crawford is totally innocent of any wrongdoing, and that is the legal argument that we are making,” said Martin Perron, his pro bono St. Louis attorney.
Neither the Division of Employment Security nor the Social Security Administration would answer detailed questions about Crawford’s case. The high court is expected to entertain oral arguments this fall.
Crawford’s life has been defined by two constants – family and schizophrenia. His fraternal twin Laressa Crawford, diagnosed at the age of 12, has never been able to work.
Unwilling to accept a similar fate, Ricky Crawford forged ahead, despite the at-times debilitating delusions.
The Dardenne Prairie resident landed his first job at 15 and continued to draw a paycheck, working nearly non-stop at fast food restaurants, cleaning services and retail outlets. Then in early 2009, while stocking shelves at a Lake Saint Louis Wal-Mart, a manager summoned him to an office.
“I was hearing a voice, and I was yelling at myself,” Crawford says. “A customer heard me, and I was fired.”
A spokeswoman for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was unable to confirm the details of Crawford’s employment.
The dismissal prompted Crawford to check himself in for a brief and voluntary stay in a mental hospital. Citing a diagnosis of schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and borderline intellectual functioning, a physician subsequently recommended that Crawford apply for disability – a request initially denied by the Social Security Administration.
Crawford appealed the ruling and applied for state unemployment benefits in July 2009 as he waited for the Social Security Administration to reconsider its decision.
Eight months later, the Social Security Administration decided in his favor.
The ruling meant Crawford was eligible for disability payments from March 2, 2010 forward, as well as retroactive compensation for the time that elapsed – a little over a year – as Social Security considered the appeal.
Court documents indicate Social Security Administration and Division of Employment Security officials calculated the amount the federal government needed to deduct from the retroactive disability payments to balance the jobless benefits Crawford accrued as he waited out the appeal process.
Social Security Administration spokeswoman Dorothy Clark said consultations between officials of the federal agency and representatives of state unemployment systems are common in resolving potential overpayments from disability and jobless claims.
But less than a month after Crawford became eligible for disability, the Division of Employment Security – as part of a larger crackdown on over-payments to the unemployed – demanded that Crawford repay $3,000.
It remains unclear whether the agencies made mistakes in calculating Crawford’s benefits. But even if they did, Crawford shouldn’t be on the hook, his lawyers argue.
“The two systems interacted. They did what they were supposed to do,” Ammann said. “You can’t go back now and change it.”
Crawford’s lawyers are challenging a portion of the statute governing unemployment law that allows the state to seek restitution “using any methods under the law,” Perron said.
“It doesn’t give them the right to demand payment when a person is totally innocent of wrongdoing,” he said.
A representative of a leading advocacy organization said Crawford is far from the first mentally disabled individual caught up in disputes with state and federal entitlement bureaucracies.
“For better or worse, this is a dual system based on two factors in conflict with one another,” said Andrew Sperling, director of federal affairs for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. “One is designed with the presumption that you are able-bodied, able to work, and therefore eligible to collect unemployment insurance. The other assumes you are disabled and presumably unable to work.”
In Crawford’s case, that conflict wound its way past several administrative law judges and labor referees before it landed on the steps of the Supreme Court earlier this year.
Ammann hopes the Supreme Court decision in the Crawford case will provide the Division of Employment Security with better direction on issues arising from over-payments and the benefits awarded to displaced workers who, as it happens, are also disabled.
Perron enlisted Ammann and the the SLU law clinic to assist him last month during the preparation of briefs the court will take into consideration as the matter moves toward a formal hearing.
For his part, Crawford wants the problem with the state to go away. And he wants to work again. As required by unemployment insurance rules, Crawford continued to apply for jobs while collecting unemployment and waiting for his appeal to be heard. He accepted a couple of offers from fast food restaurants, only to have putative employers ask him to leave when the voices returned during training and orientation.
And while the symptoms of schizophrenia remain, Crawford has battled back with a regimen of medications. His progress has increased resolve to re-enter the workforce.
His mother, also named Laressa, has no doubt he will again persevere.
“He’s a determined kid, he always has been,” said Laressa Crawford. “I envy him, because he has his goals and he goes after them.”
Source