Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Bennis v. Chater
2:94-0070 (M.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51113
Description
SSI Recipient Entitled to Retroactive Payment from Original Application of Ten Years' Benefits Underpaid Due to Agency Error
Abstract
Accepting the magistrate's report and recommendation, the
district court has granted plaintiff SSI recipient's motion for
summary judgment and remanded for payment of benefits erroneously
underpaid. Plaintiff has been receiving SSI benefits since 1982. In
1992, during a periodic review of his disability status, the Social
Security Administration (SSA) discovered an error in the
calculation of plaintiff's benefits and informed him that he
had been underpaid for the past 10 years. However, SSA corrected
plaintiff's benefits retroactive to 1990, not 1982. SSA argued
that each periodic determination of claimant's eligibility and
benefits was subject to a request for review and that
administrative decisions prior to 1990 were final and binding.
SSA's determination was affirmed on administrative review, and
plaintiff appealed. Citing Culbertson v. Secretary of HHS, 859 F.2d
319 (4th Cir. 1988), the magistrate found that, given
plaintiff's mental and multiple physical disabilities,
SSA's refusal to reconsider its 1982 determination of benefits
violated due process. Noting that the agency's general rule is
to consider whether claimant lacked the mental capacity to appeal a
prior determination, the magistrate found that the administrative
law judge applied an erroneous legal standard in reaching his
decision. The magistrate concluded that plaintiff should receive
all of the benefits erroneously underpaid since his 1982
application.
