SSR 64-18c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1)(B) and 202(p). -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT

20 CFR 404.238 and 404.616

SSR 64-18c

TAYLOR v. FLEMMING , 186 F.Supp. 280 (W.D. Ark. 1960)

[Having attained age 62 as required by section 202(h) of the Act, for

entitlement to parent's insurance benefits, the claimant filed application

for such benefits on her deceased son's earnings record. Her son has died

while in active military service in World War II. Her application was

denied by the Administration, which found that she did not meet the

requirements of section 202(h) for parent's insurance benefits, on two

grounds: (1) she was not receiving at least one-half her support from her

son at the time he died; and (2) she had not filed proof of such support

within the prescribed period after her son's death. With regard to the

second ground for disallowance, the claimant testified as follows: Before

expiration of the time limit she had inquired at a social security office

as to whether she should submit proof of support received from her son,

and had been told that in her case such proof would not be necessary, and

that as soon as she attained the requisite age she would be eligible for

parent's insurance benefits.]

MILLER, District Judge:

* * * * * * *

It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not file the proof of support

required by 42 U.S.C.A., Sec. 402(h), as modified by 42 U.S.C.A., Sec.

417(c), within the period of time specified by law * * *. No cases have

been found in which courts have discussed the time limitations for filing

a claim under this specific section of the Social Security Act. However,

the courts have considered the requirement for timely filing of claims

under other sections of the Act. In Ewing v. Risher, 176 F.2d 641 (10 Cir.

1949), the court said at page 644:

* * * * * *

See also Coy v. Folsom, 228 F.2d 276 (3 Cir. 1955).

een found in which courts have discussed the time limitations for filing

a claim under this specific section of the Social Security Act. However,

the courts have considered the requirement for timely filing of claims

under other sections of the Act. In Ewing v. Risher, 176 F.2d 641 (10 Cir.

1949), the court said at page 644:

* * * * * *

See also Coy v. Folsom, 228 F.2d 276 (3 Cir. 1955).

As noted above, the plaintiff contends that she made an inquiry at the

Social Security Office in Sacramento, California, concerning the proof of

support prior to [expiration of the time limit], and she was informed that

she did not have to file such a proof. In plaintiff's brief her attorney

argues as follows:

It is apparent that plaintiff is attempting to assert some type of

estoppel against the defendant; however, no cases are cited in support of

this position. If Mrs. Taylor did rely to her detriment upon such a

statement, it is indeed unfortunate. However, the Government cannot be

estopped from insisting upon performance of statutory conditions precedent

by the unauthorized acts of an employee of a local Social Security Office.

The general rule in this regard is stated in 54 Am.Jur., United States,

Sec. 92, and the cases cited therein, as follows:

The plaintiff has cited no authority or basis which would take the facts

in the instant case out of the general rule stated above.

Therefore, since the timely filing of the proof of support is a condition

precedent to recovery of benefits to dependent parents, and since such

condition has not been complied with in this case, the Government is not

estopped to assert such a condition precedent. Therefore, the defendant's

motion for summary judgment must be granted.

the instant case out of the general rule stated above.

Therefore, since the timely filing of the proof of support is a condition

precedent to recovery of benefits to dependent parents, and since such

condition has not been complied with in this case, the Government is not

estopped to assert such a condition precedent. Therefore, the defendant's

motion for summary judgment must be granted.

In view of the foregoing it is not necessary to consider the question of

whether the Referee acted upon substantial evidence in also holding that

the plaintiff failed to present satisfactory and competent evidence that

she was 50 percent or more dependent upon her son at the time of his

death.

* * * * * * *