security retirement benefits. Based on this change in the law, Hoesli claims Injured Workers’ rationale is now suspect. But even after the 2000 amendments, social security retirement benefits still maintain their character as wage-loss benefits. The social security retirement system was enacted “to provide workers and their families with basic protection against hardships created by the loss of earnings due to ... old age.” See Mathews v. De Castro, 429 U.S. 181, 185-86, 97 S. Ct. 431, 50 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1976). And the 2000 amendments merely “reduced from 70 to 65 the age at which an earnings test would not be applied to reduce social security benefits.” McDowell v. Jackson Energy RECC, 84 S.W.3d 71, 77 (Ky. 2002); see also Rayhall v. Akim Co., Inc., 263 Conn. 328, 819 A.2d 803 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Even though the statutory classification may
holding that disability pension benefits could be offset against both temporary and total permanent disability compensation benefits holding that offset for social security retirement benefits does not include federal disability benefits and stating that there was no legislative intent to embody the entire subchapter of the social security act dealing with both disability benefits and old age benefits holding in postamendment case that offsetting social security retirement benefits against permanent total disability payments rationally related to reducing wagereplacement benefits for retired workers recognizing general enforceability of plan provisions reducing benefits by amount of any social security benefits holding that the workers compensation offset includes total social security disability benefits received by claimant and his dependents