Schweiker v. Hansen

1981-05-26

Headline: SSA worker’s mistaken oral advice does not stop the Government from enforcing the written-application rule; Court reversed and denied extra retroactive Social Security payments to the woman.

Holding: The Court held that a Social Security field representative’s incorrect oral statement and failure to follow an internal handbook do not prevent the Government from enforcing a valid written-application rule, so extra retroactive benefits were denied.

Real World Impact:

Denies extra retroactive Social Security payments after incorrect oral advice from SSA staff.
Reinforces requirement that benefit claims be filed in writing under agency regulations.

Topics: Social Security benefits, written application rules, retroactive payments, government errors

Summary

Background

A woman met with a Social Security field representative in June 1974 and asked whether she qualified for "mother's insurance benefits." He mistakenly told her she was not eligible, and she left without filing the written application required by regulation. She later learned she was eligible, filed in May 1975, began receiving benefits, and got the maximum 12 months of retroactive pay allowed by statute, but sought an additional year of back pay covering the period after the 1974 meeting.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether the agent’s incorrect oral advice and his failure to follow the agency’s internal Claims Manual could bar the Government from enforcing the valid regulation that applications must be in writing. The Court stressed that the Claims Manual is not law, that Congress and regulations require a written application, and that the agent’s conduct fell short of the kind of misconduct that would justify preventing the Government from enforcing its rules. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and held the Government need not pay the extra retroactive year.

Real world impact

The ruling means people who get mistaken oral advice from SSA workers generally cannot obtain extra retroactive Social Security payments simply because an employee erred or did not follow internal guidance. The written-application requirement and the agency’s regulations remain controlling. Because this was a summary reversal rather than a full merits opinion, the decision is narrowly applied to these facts and does not resolve all disputes about when the Government may be prevented from enforcing its rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by Justice Brennan, dissented, arguing the Court should have granted full review because the question of when the Government may be prevented from enforcing its rules is unsettled and the agent’s mistakes directly caused the woman’s loss.