SSR 70-19c: SECTION 202(e) (1). -- REMARRIAGE BEFORE AGE 60 -- ESTOPPEL -- RELIANCE BY WIDOW ON INFORMATION FROM AN OFFICIAL SOURCE

20 CFR 404.329

SSR 70-19c

Terrell v. Finch , 302 F. Supp. 1063 (U.S.D.C., S.D. Tex.,

9/11/69)

SINGLETON, JR., District Judge : This is an action under § 205(g)

of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (Supp. 1969),

to review a final decision of the Secretary of Health, Education, and

Welfare, denying plaintiff's claim to widow's insurance benefits. This

cause is now before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff filed an application for widow's insurance benefits on August

17, 1966. Plaintiff claimed entitlement on the account of James Oliver

Sills, her deceased former husband. The application was denied and the

denial was affirmed upon reconsideration. On October 28, 1967, a hearing

was held in Houston, Texas. The hearing examiner rendered his decision on

October 30, 1967. He found plaintiff had remarried on November 2, 1966,

prior to the time she had attained age sixty, and thus she was not

entitled to widow's benefits on her deceased husband's account.

At the hearing plaintiff testified that she had made inquiry at the local

office of the Social Security Administration with regard to the effect of

her remarriage on her entitlement to widow's insurance benefits. She

testified that an employee of the Social Security Administration assured

her that remarriage would not affect her Social Security benefits. In

reliance on this misinformation, plaintiff remarried twenty-six days

before her sixtieth birthday. She testified that she would not have

remarried when she did, if she had known that as a consequence of the

remarriage she would lose her widow's benefits.

ed that an employee of the Social Security Administration assured

her that remarriage would not affect her Social Security benefits. In

reliance on this misinformation, plaintiff remarried twenty-six days

before her sixtieth birthday. She testified that she would not have

remarried when she did, if she had known that as a consequence of the

remarriage she would lose her widow's benefits.

The hearing examiner found that plaintiff's story "has a ring of truth in

it and I credit her fully with testimony that she has given." After

reviewing the record, this Court is convinced that all of the hearing

examiner's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff does

not dispute the hearing examiner's findings of fact. The dispute before

the Court is one of law. Plaintiff contends that the doctrine of equitable

estoppel applies to the facts at hand. An employee of the government

misrepresented a material fact to plaintiff and she relied on that

misrepresentation to her detriment. Therefore, plaintiff contends that the

government should be estopped from denying her the widow's insurance

benefits.

Section 202(e) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 402(e)

(Supp. 1969), in part, reads as follows:

* * * * * * *

There is no doubt that the local employee of the Social Security

Administration who purportedly misinformed plaintiff was not authorized to

make the representation in question.

Ewing v. Risher, supra; Flamm v. Ribicoff, supra; and Taylor v.

Fleming, supra , are all cases in which local Social Security employees

allegedly misinformed claimants. In each case the courts ruled that

estoppel would not apply. In Taylor , a plaintiff seeking dependent

parent's insurance benefits was erroneously informed that she did not have

to file a proof of support. In ruling that estoppel did not apply the

Court said:

f, supra; and Taylor v.

Fleming, supra , are all cases in which local Social Security employees

allegedly misinformed claimants. In each case the courts ruled that

estoppel would not apply. In Taylor , a plaintiff seeking dependent

parent's insurance benefits was erroneously informed that she did not have

to file a proof of support. In ruling that estoppel did not apply the

Court said:

The right to widow's insurance benefits that plaintiff seeks to enforce

here is one created by statute, not by common law. Plaintiff must comply

with the statutory requirements in order to have an enforceable right. The

unauthorized act of a government employee cannot vary the requirements

established by Congress.

There are instances in which the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be

applied against the Government. In most instances the doctrine is only

applied when:

It is clear that the present case does not meet the above standard,

particularly in that the agent in question acted beyond the limits of his

authority, and the granting of estoppel here would work a violation of the

Social Security Act.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, defendant's motion for

summary judgment should be granted.