The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision denying increased Social Security benefits for a claimant who applied before her full retirement age based on incorrect information. Linden v. Comm’r of Social Security, No. 24-1762 (6th Cir. Mar. 17, 2025).
Paula Linden applied for Social Security retirement benefits at 62, several years before her full retirement age. Thus, she received less each month than if she had waited to file for benefits at the full retirement age of 66. She had applied early because she mistakenly thought that if she applied at age 62, she would receive the amount she would have begun receiving if she applied at age 66. Paula asserted that after she had completed an online Social Security application at age 62, Social Security Administration (SSA) staff incorrectly told her she would receive the same benefit amount she would have received if she waited to apply at age 66.
After receiving the lower monthly benefit amount for several years, Paula discovered her misunderstanding and notified the SSA. She argued that her application had been based on the SSA staff member’s misrepresentation and that the SSA should retroactively change the date of her application to her sixty-sixth birthday and increase her monthly benefits. She sought this relief based on 42 U.S.C. § 402(j)(5), which provides that if the government causes a claimant to fail to file based on misinformation, the claimant is entitled to a higher monthly benefit amount.
The SSA denied Paula’s request, and she requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ also denied her request, determining that no relief was available under § 402(j)(5) because it only allows greater benefits for those who fail to apply based on misinformation from the SSA—and Paula had applied for benefits. She then sought relief in a magistrate court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the SSA. Paula appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit determined that the plain text of § 402(j)(5) precluded Paula’s recovery. It rejected Paula’s assertion that she was entitled to relief because she had failed to timely apply for benefits at age 66 due to misinformation. The court held that Paula had improperly added the word “timely” to the statute, which expressly applies only to claimants who fail to file at all.
In addition, Paula’s reliance on case law in which a claimant was provided relief because the SSA had told them to file for retirement benefits based on the earnings records of an ex-husband to whom they had not been married long enough was misplaced. That claimant had failed to file an application for the correct ex-husband, and the application she had filed was invalid. The court distinguished Paula’s situation because she had filed a valid application at age 62.
The court also ruled that the SSA’s Program Operations Manual System, which provides relief to applicants who fail to timely file an application, did not support Paula’s claims because she had filed her application in a timely manner. This conclusion supports the remediation scheme set forth in § 402(j)(5), which allows workers to recover the payments they did not receive because of a failure to file. In Paula’s situation, by filing at age 62, she would receive the same amount as if she had filed for benefits at age 66 because she would receive smaller payments over a longer period rather than larger payments over a shorter period. As a result, the court affirmed.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
