# SSR 64-18c: SSR 64-18c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1)(B) and 202(p). -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT > Federal · Rulings · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_64_18c ## Section - **Citation:** SSR 64-18c - **Heading:** SSR 64-18c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1)(B) and 202(p). -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Rulings - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Social Security Rulings / OASI / Parent's Insurance Benefits / SSR 64-18c ## Text 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. * * * * * * * ## Nearby sections - [SSR 60-23 SSR 60-23. VALUE OF PERSONAL SERVICES RENDERED BY WORKER FOR CLAIMANT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_60_23.md) - [SSR 61-2 SSR 61-2. CONTRIBUTIONS OF FOOD, CLOTHING, LODGING, ETC., TO CLAIMANT BY WORKER](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_61_2.md) - [SSR 63-16 SSR 63-16: SECTION 202(p). -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- GOOD CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SUPPORT WITHIN 2-YEAR PERIOD AFTER WORKER'S DEATH](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_63_16.md) - [SSR 64-18c SSR 64-18c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1)(B) and 202(p). -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_64_18c.md) - [SSR 64-19c SSR 64-19c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1)(B) and 202(p). -- NONESTOPPEL OF ADMINISTRATION TO REQUIRE COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENT FOR ENTITLEMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_64_19c.md) - [SSR 65-40 SSR 65-40: SECTIONS 202(h) and 216(h)(2)(A). -- RELATIONSHIP -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- "IN LOCO PARENTIS"](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_65_40.md) - [SSR 66-15c SSR 66-15c: SECTION 202(h). -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- SUPPORT REQUIREMENT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_66_15c.md) - [SSR 68-4c SSR 68-4c: SECTION 202(h). -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- ONE-HALF SUPPORT -- BURDEN OF PROOF](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_68_4c.md) - [SSR 74-25c SSR 74-25c: SECTIONS 202(h)(3) and 216(h)(2) (42 U.S.C. 402(h)(3) and 416(h)(2)) -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- RELATIONSHIP UNDER STATE LAW](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_74_25c.md) - [SSR 74-26c SSR 74-26c: SECTIONS 202(h)(1) and 214(a), 217 (42 U.S.C. 402(h)(1), 414(a) and 417) -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- GRATUITOUS WAGE CREDITS FOR MILITARY SERVICE -- EXCLUSION OF SERVICE IN PHILIPPINE ARMY -- CONSTITUTIONALITY](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_74_26c.md) - [SSR 75-26c SSR 75-26c: SECTION 202(h) (42 U.S.C. 402(h)) -- PARENT'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- ONE-HALF SUPPORT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_75_26c.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_OASI_SSR_64_18c. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.