Summary

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Richardson v. Belcher — Dissent

The nature of the supplemental benefit has no relation to a worker's incentive to return to work.
Nor is § 224 designed to stem a possible 'erosion' of state workmen's compensation plans. As Mr. Justice MARSHALL points out, post, at 263, § 224 itself provides that there shall be no reduction of federal social security benefits with respect to those state workmen's compensation plans which themselves offset federal social security benefits against state payments. Thus, the statute encourages States concerned about overcompensation of disabled workers to cut back on their own programs.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William O. Douglas William O. Douglas Richardson v. Belcher — Dissent

Congress is, of course, not required to address itself to all aspects of a social problem in its legislation. It must, however, justify the distinctions it draws between people otherwise similarly situated. Rehabilitation incentives are not a rational justification for the discrimination worked by § 224. [10] If it is at all rational to argue that duplicating payments 'impede rehabilitation,' the argument must apply to all such payments regardless of their source.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature