SSR 61-60. COMPUTING TIME PERIOD FOR REOPENING DETERMINATION

W applied for old-age insurance benefits in May 1957 at age 71. He needed

six quarters of coverage to be insured for these benefits. The earnings

record, which was complete through 1956, clearly showed that W had only

four quarters of coverage; but the certification of earnings, prepared by

a clerk from the earnings record, erroneously showed that W had five

quarters of coverage. A "Statement of Wages" form signed by his employer

showed that W had been paid $76 in March 1957. Since it appeared from the

certification of earnings and from the "Statement of Wages" that W had

acquired his sixth quarter of coverage in March 1957 and thus had become

fully insured, he was awarded old-age insurance benefits effective that

month. Notice of the award, mailed to W on June 12, 1957, and bearing that

date, was returned marked "Unclaimed," as was W's first benefit check. W

had moved without notifying the Administration of his change of address

and efforts to ascertain his new address were unsuccessful. Therefore, his

subsequent checks were withheld, and W never received actual notice of the

award of old-age insurance benefits.

Apparently having forgotten about his original application, in May 1961 W

filed another application for old-age insurance benefits. He stated that

he had not worked since March 1957. A recertification of W's earnings

showed only four quarters of coverage prior to January 1957 and the

quarter of coverage for the first quarter of 1957. On June 12, 1961, the

recertification of W's earnings was found to be correct and the

Administration sought to reopen the prior determination on the basis that

the original earnings certification (on which the prior determination was

based) was inconsistent with the evidence as to W's earnings in the

Administration's records at the time prior determination was made.

The question to be resolved is whether the lapse of time precludes

reopening of the determination of award made in June 1957.

ught to reopen the prior determination on the basis that

the original earnings certification (on which the prior determination was

based) was inconsistent with the evidence as to W's earnings in the

Administration's records at the time prior determination was made.

The question to be resolved is whether the lapse of time precludes

reopening of the determination of award made in June 1957.

Regulations No. 4, § 404.957( b ), provides that, upon a finding of

good cause, an initial determination may be reopened within 4 years after

the date of the notice to the claimant of such determination. Regulations

No. 4, § 404.958( c ), provides that "good cause" shall be deemed to

exist where there is an error on the face of the evidence on which the

determination was based.

An error on the face of the evidence exists where the incorrectness of

the determination is apparent from the evidence which was in the

possession of the Social Security Administration at the time the

determination was made. Because of error on the face of the evidence on

which the initial determination was based in the instant case, there is

good cause for the reopening of that determination within 4 years after

the date of the notice to W of the determination.

The Administration sought to reopen the determination on June 12, 1961.

If this action was taken within 4 years of the date of notice, the

determination was reopened timely and may be revised. Otherwise, although

the evidence shows W is not eligible, the determination cannot be reopened

and revised and W would be entitled to payment of benefits for March 1957

and each month thereafter.

Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.) states,

in pertinent part, the general Federal rule:

A review of other legal authorities indicates that rule 6(a) states the

prevailing principle governing this type of case.

not eligible, the determination cannot be reopened

and revised and W would be entitled to payment of benefits for March 1957

and each month thereafter.

Rule 6(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.) states,

in pertinent part, the general Federal rule:

A review of other legal authorities indicates that rule 6(a) states the

prevailing principle governing this type of case.

Notice of the award was dated June 12, 1957, and was mailed that day.

Although W did not actually receive the notice, the letter was properly

sent to his last known address, as required by Regulations No. 4, §

404.907, and constitutes notice of determination within the meaning of §

404.957( b ) of the Regulations. Thus, in determining the 4-year

period during which the initial determination may be reopened, June 12,

1957, the date of the notice to W, is not included and June 12, 1961, is

the last day of the 4-year period within which the initial determination

may be reopened.

It is, therefore, held that the determination of award of which

notice was mailed on June 12, 1957, may be reopened and revised, and the

revised determination is that W is not fully insured, was not entitled to

the benefits for which he applied in 1957, and is not entitled on the

basis of the 1961 application.