# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 3- 18 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Mi ck Tho m as Ro dysil l

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Caro lyn W . Col vi n, Act in g C om m is si on er o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Lin co ln

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 20 , 20 13

Fil ed : M arch 21 , 20 14

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, COLLOTON , and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Mi ck Ro dysil l ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t up ho ld in g th e de ci si on of 1

th e Co m m is si on er of th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (th e “ Co m m is si on er”)

. The

The Hon or ab le Tho m as D. Tha lk en

, U n i t ed St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1

Dis tri ct of Neb ras ka

, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by co ns en t

of th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).Co m

m is si on er de te rm in ed th at Ro dysil l was no t e n t i t le d to waiv er of reco ve ry of

ov erp ai d di sa bi li t y b e n e fit s. Fi nd in g th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e

Co m m is si on er’s d eci si on , we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Ro dysil l be ga n rece iv in g So ci al Secu rit y di sa bi li ty be ne fit s in 19 96

. In Apr il

20 07

, th e Co m

m is si on er no ti fie d Ro dysil l th a t hi s el ig ib il it y fo r di sa bi li ty be ne fit s

ha d en de d in Ju ly 20 03 ba se d up on hi s su bs ta nt ia l wor k act iv it y

. The Co m m is si on er

su bs eq ue nt ly is su ed a rev is ed de ci si on th at Ro dysil l’s be ne fit s sh ou ld ha ve en de d in

Ju ne 20 04

. The Co m

m is si on er or de red Ro dysil l to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t of

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s th at he rece iv ed be twee n Ju ne 20 04 an d Mar ch 20 07

, w h i c h th e

Co m m is si on er ca lc ul at ed to be $2 1,9 29

.

Ro dysil l req ue st ed waiv er of reco ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t. The Co m m is si on er

de ni ed waiv er of reco ve ry an d pr op os ed th at Ro dysil l mak e pa y m en ts of $3 00 pe r

m on th to rep ay th e o v e r p a ym en t. Ro dysil l th en req ue st ed an d rece iv ed a he ari ng

be fo re an ad m in is tra ti ve la w jud ge (“ ALJ”)

. Alt ho ug h th e ALJ d e t e r mi ne d th at

Ro dysil l was no t at f

a u l t i n c a us in g th e ov erp ay m en t, th e ALJ de ni ed waiv er of

r e c o v e r y

. The ALJ co nc lu de d th at reco ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t di d no t de feat th e

pu rp os e of Tit le II of th e So ci al Secu rit y Act an d was no t ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od

co ns ci en ce. In fin di ng th at reco ve ry of t he ov erp ay m en t d id no t d efea t t he pu rp os e

of Ti t l e I I

, th e ALJ de te rm in ed Ro dysil l’s ab il it y to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t by

co ns id eri ng th e in co m es an d ex p e n s e s of bo th Ro dysil l an d hi s wife

. Ro dysil l’s

fin an ci al rep or ts sh owe d th at th ei r ho us eh o l d i n co m e ex ceed ed th ei r ex pe ns es by

$9 70 in Apr il 20 09 an d by $4 77 in Apr il 20 10

. The ALJ al so m en ti on ed Ro dysil l an d

hi s wife ’s pu rch as e of a ho m e whi le hi s ap pe al was pe nd in g. The ALJ c on cl ud ed

,

“ Non et he le ss

, [Ro dysil l] an d hi s wife st il l [] ha ve so m e in co m e each m on th th at co ul d

be us ed fo r rep ay m en t.” The ALJ al so al lu de d to Ro dysil l’s te st im on y th at he wou ld

-2

-be wor ki ng m or e ho ur s in th e f u t u r e

. Howev er, th e ALJ di d no t ad jus t Ro dysil l’s

in co m e d ue to th is po ss ib le in crea se in in co m e.

Afte r th e App eal s Co un ci l de ni ed Ro dysil l’s req ue st fo r rev ie w, Ro dysil l

so ug ht rev ie w in th e di st ric t co ur t pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5( g)

. The di st ric t co ur t

co nc l u d e d th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e Co m m is si on er’s de ci si on to de ny

waiv er o f rec ov ery of

th e o ve rp ay m en t. Ro dysil l ap pe al s.

II . Disc us si on

W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t c ou rt’s co nc lu si on th at su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or ts th e Co m

m is si on er’s de ci si on

. Perk in s v. Ast ru e

, 64 8 F.3 d 89 2, 89 7 (8 th Ci r.

2 0 11 ). Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce is “ le ss th an a pr ep on de ran ce bu t

. . . en ou gh th at a

reas on ab le m in d wou ld fin d it ad eq ua te to su pp or t th e co nc lu si on .” Jo ne s v. Ast ru e

,

61 9 F.3 d 96 3, 96 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Kl ue sn er v. Ast ru e

,

60 7 F.3 d 53 3, 53 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). I n d et erm in in g whe th er su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

su pp or ts th e Co m

m is si on er’s de ci si on

, we “ ‘con si de r th e ev id en ce th at su pp or ts th e

Co m m is si on er’s de ci si on as well as th e ev id en ce th at de tra ct s fro m it .’ W e m ay no t

rev ers e th e Co m

m is si on er m erel y be cau se ‘w e wou ld ha ve co m e to a di ffer en t

co nc lu si on .’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Kl ue sn er , 60 7 F .3d at 5 36 ) (i nt ern al cit at io n o m it te d)

.

W he n e v er th e Co m

m is si on er de te rm in es th at an in di vi du al ha s rece iv ed an

ov erp ay m en t of be ne fit s, “ pr op er ad jus tm en t or reco ve ry sh al l be m ad e.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 40 4( a)(1 ). Howev er, th e Co m m is si on er is no t pe rm it te d to reco ve r an ov erp ay m en t

of b e n e f i t s “fro m [] an y pe rs on who is wit ho ut fau lt if su ch ad jus tm en t or reco ve ry

wou ld de feat th e pu rp os e of th is su bc ha pt er or wou ld be a g a i n st eq ui ty an d go od

co ns ci en ce.” Id

. § 40 4( b)

. An in di vi du al who ha s rece iv ed an ov erp ay m en t an d who

is wit ho ut fau lt m ay req ue st waiv er of reco ve ry ba se d up on ei th er of th es e

pr oh ib it io ns , 2 0 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 06 , a nd i n d o i n g so , b ears th e bu rd en of pr oo f, Si pp

v. Ast ru e , 64 1 F .3d 97 5, 9 81 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

-3

-Ro dysil l arg ue s th at reco ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t de feat s th e pu rp os e of Tit le

II of t h e S oc ia l Secu rit y Act. Thi s oc cu rs whe re reco ve ry “ de pr iv e[s ] a pe rs on of

in co m e req ui red fo r or di na ry an d nec es sa ry li vi ng ex pe ns es ,” su ch as i n “ si tu at io ns

whe re th e pe rs on fro m who m reco ve ry is so ug ht ne ed s su bs ta nt ia ll y al l of hi s cu rren t

in co m e

. . . to m eet cu rren t or di na ry an d ne ces sa ry li vi ng ex pe ns es .” 20 C.F.R.

§ 40 4.5 08 (a), (b ); se e al

so id

. § 4 0 4

. 5 0 8 ( a ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at “ [t]hi s de pe nd s up on

whe th er th e pe rs o n h a s an in co m e or fin an ci al res ou rces su ffi ci en t fo r m or e th an

or di na ry an d ne ces sa ry ne ed s, or is de pe nd en t up on al l of hi s cu rren t be ne fit s fo r su ch

ne ed s ” )

. A s t he ALJ ob se rv ed

, bo th of Ro dysil l’s fin an ci al rep or ts sh ow th at hi s

ho us eh ol d in co m e ex ceed s hi s m on th ly ex pe ns es

. Bas ed up on th is fact an d th e ot he r

ev id en ce in th e reco rd

, th e ALJ de te rm in ed th at Ro dysil l do es no t ne ed “ su bs ta nt ia ll y

al l” of h is ho us eh ol d i nc om e to m eet ord in ary an d n eces sa ry li vi ng ex pe ns es

.

Ro dysil l c l ai m s th at th e ALJ erre d by in cl ud in g Ro dysil l’s wife ’s in co m e as

pa rt of th e in co m e av ai l a b l e f o r rep ay m en t. Thi s was im pr op er, Ro dysil l arg ue s,

be cau se he was no t m arri ed whe n he rece iv ed th e di sa bi li ty ov erp ay m en ts

. Howev er,

th e pr oc ed ur es us ed by th e Co m m is si on er to p r o ces s cl ai m s fo r So ci al Secu rit y

be ne fit s, whi ch are te rm ed th e Co m m is si on er’s Pro gr am Ope rat io ns Man ua l Sy st em

(“ POMS” ), pr ov id e th at a sp ou se ’s in co m e is in cl ud ed whe n cal cu la ti ng th e in co m e

av ai la bl e fo r rep ay m en t

. S e t ti ng fo rth th e Co m m is si on er’s po li cy fo r de te rm in in g

“ in co m e” an d “ or di na ry an d ne ces sa ry li vi ng ex pe ns es ,” the re le va nt PO MS gui de li ne

pr o v i d e s th at th e Co m

m is si on er “ [c]on si de r in co m e to a sp ou se an d de pe nd en ts as

be in g av ai la bl e to th e pe rs on req ue st in g waiv er.” POMS GN § 02 25 0. 1 2 0

. Thi s

POMS gu id el in e do es no t dr aw a di st in ct io n ba se d up on m ari ta l st at us at th e ti m e th at

th e in di vi du al rece iv ed th e ov erp ay m en t. Acco rd in gl y

, th e Co m m is si on er in te rp ret s

th e te rm “ in co m e” i n 2 0 C .F.R. § 4 04 .50 8 t o i nc lu de a sp ou se ’s in co m e.

As an in te rp re t a t i o n of a reg ul at io n pr om ul ga te d by th e Co m

m is si on er, th e

POMS co nt ro l un le ss th ey are in co ns is te nt wit h th e reg ul at io n or pl ai nl y erro ne ou s.

Reu tt er ex re l. Reu tt er v. Bar nh ar t

, 37 2 F.3 d 94 6, 95 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ci ti ng Aue r v.

-4

-Rob bi ns

, 51 9 U.S. 45 2, 46 1 (1 99 7) ); Gra ge rt v. La ke

, 54 1 F. Ap p ’x 8 5 3

, 8 56 n.1

(1 0t h Ci r. 20 13 ) (u np ub l i s h ed ). Ro dysil l do es no t di sp ut e th at th e rel ev an t POMS

gu id el in e sp eci fie s th at hi s wife’s inc om e sh ou ld be in cl ud ed whe n det erm in in g hi s

ab il it y to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t. Nor do e s h e co nt en d th at th e POMS gu id el in e is

in co ns is te nt wit h 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 08

. In st ead

, Ro dysil l arg ue s th at

, by in cl ud in g hi s

wife ’s in co m e whe n cal cu la ti ng t h e i n c o me av ai la bl e fo r rep ay m en t, th e rel ev an t

POMS gu id el in e is ineq ui ta bl e an d effe ct iv el y im po se s a pr e-m ari ta l de bt on hi s wife

.

In su pp or t of th is arg um en t, Ro dysil l ci te s Neb ras ka la w, whi ch pr ov id es th at

“ [m ]arit al de bt in cl ud es on ly tho se ob li ga ti on s in cu rred du rin g th e m arri ag e fo r th e

joi nt be ne fit of th e pa rti es .” Mat he ws v. Mat he ws

, 67 6 N.W .2d 42

, 58 (Neb

. 20 04 ).

Howev er, by in cl ud in g th e in co m e of Ro dysil l’s wife whe n cal cu la ti ng cu rren t

in co m e, th e Co m

m is si on er is no t seek in g or secu rin g a jud gm en t agai ns t Rod y si ll ’s

wife for th e am ou nt of th e ov erp ay m en t. In st ead , th e Co m m is si on er i s co ns id eri ng

Ro dysil l ’s h o u se ho ld in co m e fo r th e li m it ed pu rp os e of de te rm in in g ho w m uc h

in co m e is av ai l a b l e f

o r rep ay m en t. Bas ed up on th is reco rd

, we can no t sa y th at th e

rel ev an t POMS gu id el in e is pl ai nl y erro ne ou s. Se e Reu tt er

, 37 2 F.3 d a t 95 1. The

ALJ, th en

, di d no t err by co ns id eri ng Ro dys il l’s wife ’s in co m e in de te rm in in g

whe th er Ro dysil l was ab le to rep ay th e o ve rp ay m en t. 2

Ro dysil l al so arg ue s th at th e ALJ erre d by co ns id eri ng hi s pu rch as e of a ho m e

whi le hi s ap pe al fro m th e de ni al of waiv er of reco ve ry was pe nd in g. W hi le th e ALJ

ack no wled ge d th at Ro dysil l an d hi s wife ha d pu rch a s ed a ho m e, th e ALJ di d no t

in cl ud e R o d ys i l l ’s ho m e as a li qu efi ab le as se t th at wou ld be rel ev an t to Ro dysil l’s

ab il it y to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t. Se e POMS GN § 02 25 0.1 25 (n ot in g th at a “ fam il y

ho m e” is no t co ns id ered an as se t “wh ic h m ay be li qu id at ed to rep ay an

Eve n if th e Co m

m is si on er di d no t in cl ud e th e in co m e of Ro dysil l’s wife whe n 2

cal cu la ti ng cu rren t i nc om e, Ro dysil l co nc ed es th at , bas ed up on hi s pr o rat a in co m e

an d hi s sh are of ho us eh ol d ex pe ns es

, “ at be st he wou ld be le ft with se ve ral hu nd red

do ll ars pe r m on th .” Thu s, Ro dysil l a d m it s th at he wou ld ha ve ex ces s in co m e fo r

rep ay m en t ev en wit ho ut in cl ud in g h is wife ’s in co m e.

-5

-ov erp ay m en t” ). Th e A LJ si m pl y ex pl ai ne d th at

, ev en aft er pu rch as in g a ho m e,

“ [Ro dysil l] an d hi s wife st il l [] ha ve so m e in co m e each m on th th at co ul d be us ed fo r

rep ay m en t.”

Ro dysil l al so as se rts th at th e ALJ sh ou ld no t ha ve co ns id ered hi s te st im ony th at

he wou ld wor k m or e ho ur s in th e fu tu re. The rel ev an t reg ul at io n in di cat es th at

reco ve ry de feat s th e pu rp os e of Tit le II whe n reco ve ry “ de pr iv e[s ] a pe rs on of in co m e

req ui red fo r or di na ry an d ne ces sa ry li vi ng ex pe ns es ,” su ch as in “ si tu at io ns whe re th e

pe rs on

. . . ne ed s su bs ta nt ia ll y al l of hi s cu rren t in co m e.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 08 (a), (b ).

The POMS pr ov id e th at “ [a]nt ic ip at ed fin an ci al ch an ge s m ay

. . . in flu en ce a pe rs on ’s

ab il it y to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t, bu t th ey sh ou ld be ex pe ct ed to oc cu r wit hi n a few

m on th s of th e da te of th e waiv er de ci si on a n d sh ou ld be ve rif ie d.” POMS GN

§ 02 25 0.1 15

. Reg ard le ss of whe th er th e Co m m is si on er can co ns id er an in di vi du al ’s

po te nt ia l fo r in crea se d earn in gs in de te rm in in g whe th er reco ve ry de feat s th e pu rp os e

of Tit le II, th e ALJ he re m erel y m en ti on ed Ro dysil l’s pr os pe ct of wor ki ng m or e ho ur s

in th e co nt ex t of m ak in g th e po in t th at Ro dysil l ha d a st ab le job

. The ALJ di d no t

gi ve Ro dysil l’s po te nt ia l fo r in crea se d earn in gs an y fu rth er weig ht an d di d no t ad jus t

Ro dysil l’s in co m e ba se d up on th is p o s s i b i l i t y

. Mo reo ve r, ev en wit ho ut a po te nt ia l

in crea se in in co m e, Ro dysil l’s ho us eh ol d in co m e st il l ex ceed ed hi s ex pe ns es by $9 70

in Apr il 20 09 an d by $4 77 in Apr il 20 10

. Acco rd in gl y

, su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts

th e Co m m is si on er’s co nc lu si on th at reco ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t do es no t de feat th e

pu rp os e o f Tit le II o f th e So ci al Secu rit y Act.

Ro dysil l ne xt argues tha t re co ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t “ wou ld be ag ai ns t eq ui ty

an d go od co ns ci en ce.” 42 U.S.C. § 40 4( b)

. The rel ev an t reg ul at io n e x p l a i n s t h at

reco ve ry is ag ai ns t eq ui ty and go od co ns ci en ce i f an in di vi du al :

( 1 ) C h a n ge d hi s or he r po si ti on fo r th e wor se

. . . or rel in qu is he d a

va lu ab le rig ht

. . . b e c a us e of rel ia nc e up on a no ti ce th at a pa y m en t

wou ld be m ad e o r be cau se of t he ov erp ay m en t i ts el f; o r

-6

-(2 ) W as li vi ng in a se pa rat e ho us eh ol d fro m th e ov erp ai d pe rs on at th e

ti m e o f th e o ve rp ay m en t an d d id no t re cei ve th e o ve rp ay m en t.

20 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 09 (a). The ALJ de te rm in ed

, an d Ro dysil l do es no t di sp ut e, th at th e

ci rcu m st an ces de sc rib ed in § 40 4.5 09 (a)( 1) are no t pres en t here

. Ro dysil l con te nd s

th at § 40 4.5 09 (a)( 2) is ap pl ic ab le he re be cau se th e Co m m is si on er in cl ud ed hi s wife ’s

in co m e as pa rt of th e in co m e av ai la bl e fo r rep ay m en t ev en th ou gh sh e di d no t rece iv e

th e ov erp ay m en ts an d was no t m arri ed to hi m at th at ti m e. Bu t th e Co m m is si on er is

no t se ek in g reco ve ry o f th e ov erp ay m en t fro m Ro dysil l’s wife

. Rat he r, th e

Co m m is si on er is se ek in g reco ve ry fro m Ro dysil l, th e in di vi du al who rece iv ed th e

ov erp ay m en ts

. Se e 42 U.S.C. § 40 4( a)(1 )(A) (au th or iz in g th e Co mm is si on er to

reco up ov erp ai d be ne fit s fro m th e in di vi du a l w h o r ecei ve d th e ov erp ay m en ts ).

Sect io n 4 04 .50 9( a)(2 ) is th eref or e in ap pl ic ab le

.

Drawi ng on ou r op in io n in Gro se cl os e v. Bow en

, 80 9 F.2 d 50 2 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ),

Ro dysil l ne xt as se rts th at § 4 04 .50 9( a) d oe s n ot ex ha us ti ve ly lis t t he cir cu m st an ces

whe n reco ve ry is ag ai ns t eq ui ty and go od co ns ci en ce. In Gro se cl os e

, th e Secr et ary

of Heal th an d Hum an Serv ic es so ug ht ad jus tm en t o f an in di vi du al ’s ret ire m en t

be ne fit s to reco up ov erp ay m en ts of in su ran ce be ne fit s t h a t ha d be en m ad e to hi s

da ug ht er. Id

. at 50 3. The fat he r di d no t rece iv e th e ov erp ay m en ts or acce pt th em on

be ha lf of hi s da ug ht er

, w a s n o t at fau lt in cau si ng th e ov erp ay m en ts

, an d ha d no

kn owl ed ge th at hi s da ug ht er was rece iv in g th e ov erp ay men ts

. Id

. at 50 5- 06

. Eve n

th ou gh th e reg ul at io ns di d no t sp eci fy th at reco ve ry in th is ci rcu m st an ce was ag ai ns t

eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce— as th ey do no w—t he Gro se cl os e co ur t de te rm in ed th at

reco ve ry fro m th e fat he r of th e ov erp ay m en ts th at wer e m ad e to hi s da ug ht er was

ag ai ns t e q u i t y a n d g oo d co ns ci en ce. Id

. at 50 6. Ro dysil l ur ge s th at reco ve ry is

ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce be cau se th e ALJ co ns id ered hi s wife ’s in co m e in

de te rm in in g h i s a b i l i ty to rep ay th e ov erp ay m en t. Howev er, “ [t]he in di vi du al ’s

fin an ci al ci rcu m st an ces are no t m at eri al to a fin di ng of ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od

co ns ci en ce.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 09 (b ). Mo reo ve r, un li ke Gro se cl os e

, th e

-7

-C o m

m is si on er is se ek in g reco ve ry fro m th e in di vi du al who rece iv ed th e

ov erp ay m en ts

, th us m in im iz in g th e in eq ui ty th at th e co ur t rel ie d up on in Gro se cl os e

.

Ro dysil l fu rth er ass ert s th at rep ay m en t is ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce

be cau se he ha d no k n o w l e d g e of th e ov erp ay m en ts an d be cau se th e ov erp ay m en ts

were du e to th e ne gl ig en ce of th e Co m m is si on er. In es se nc e

, R o d ysi ll eq ua te s th e

fact th at th e ALJ ad

jud ge d hi m to be wit ho ut fau lt in cau si ng th e ov erp ay m en ts wit h

th e reco ve ry of th es e ov erp ay m en ts be in g ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce

.

Howev er, th e So ci al Secu rit y Act ex pl ic it ly di st in gu i s h e s b e twee n th es e two

sh owi ng s, sp eci fy in g th at th ere sh al l be no reco ve ry of an ov erp ay m en t “ fro m [] an y

pe rs on who is wit ho ut fau lt if su ch ad jus tm en t or reco ve ry

. . . wou ld be ag ai ns t

eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce.” 42 U.S.C. § 40 4( b) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Acco rd in gl y

,

m erel y be in g wit ho ut fau lt pu rs ua nt to § 40 4 ( b ) do es no t ren de r reco ve ry of th e

ov erp ay m en t a g a i ns t eq ui ty an d go od co ns ci en ce. Se e Co ul st on v. Apf

el

, 22 4 F.3 d

89 7, 90 0- 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ Our fin di ng th at [th e pl ai nt iff ] was wit ho ut fau lt do es

no t au to m at ic al ly res ul t in a vi ct or y fo r hi m

. W e m u s t a ls o de te rm in e whe th er

r ep ay m en t wou ld de feat th e pu rp os e of pr ov id in g so ci al se cu rit y to [h im ] or w o u l d

be ag ai ns t eq ui ty or go od co ns ci en ce.”)

.

Ro dysil l al so arg ue s th at waiv er of reco ve ry is pr op er be cau se he acce pt ed th e

ov erp ay m en ts in rel ia nc e on rep res en ta ti on s m ad e by th e Co m m is si on er

. The

rel ev an t reg ul at io ns pr ov id e th at an in di vi du al is en ti tl ed to waiv er of reco ve ry if he

“ a c c ep ts su ch ov erp ay m en t be cau se of rel ia nc e on erro ne ou s in fo rm at io n fro m an

of fic ia l so ur c e wit hi n th e So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on

. . . wit h res pe ct to th e

in te rp ret at io n of a pe rti ne nt pr ov is io n of th e So ci al Secu rit y Act o r r e gu la ti on s

pe rta in in g th eret o.” 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.5 10 a; se e al so id

. § 40 4.5 12 (a) (“ In th e

si tu at io n[ ] de sc rib ed in

. . . [§ ] 40 4.5 10 a, ad jus tm en t or reco ve ry wil l be waiv ed si nc e

it wil l be de em ed su ch ad jus tm en t or reco ve ry is ag ai ns t eq ui ty an d go od

co ns ci en ce.”)

. In Gla dd en v. Ca ll ah an

, 13 9 F.3 d 12 19 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ), we in te rp ret ed

th es e reg ul at io ns to pr ov id e th at an in di vi du al is en ti tl ed to waiv er of reco ve ry of an

-8

-ov erp ay m en t whe re he rel ie d up on th e st at em en t of an ALJ in acce pt in g t he

ov erp ay m en t. Id

. at 12 20 , 12 23

.

Rel y in g on Gla dd en

, Ro dysil l as se rts th at he no ti fie d th e Co m m is si on er of hi s

wor k act iv it y an d th at he acce pt ed th e ov erp ay m en ts be cau se th e Co m m is si on er

co nt in ue d to pr ov id e di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. Howev er, acce pt in g ov erp ay m en ts in

r e l i a n ce on th e st at em en t of an ALJ co nc ern in g on e’s co nt in ui ng en ti tl em en t t o

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s, as in Gla dd en

, is en ti rel y di ffer en t fro m th e si tu at io n pr es en t he re,

whe re Ro dysil l rel ie d on th e m ere fact th at th e Co m m is si on er co nt in ue d to pro vi de

di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. In de ed

, th e Si xth Circu it reject ed an an al og ou s arg um en t in Val le y

v. Co mmis si on er of So ci al Se cu ri ty

, 42 7 F.3 d 38 8 (6 th Ci r. 20 05 ), whe re th e pl ai nt iff

no ti fie d th e Co m

m is si on er of hi s cu rren t wor k st at us an d cl ai m ed th at he acce pt ed th e

ov erp ay m en ts be cau se of le tt ers th at he rece iv ed fro m th e Co m m is si on er. Id

. at 39 0,

39 3. The se le tt ers

, whi ch acco m pa ni ed hi s be ne fit s ch eck s, de sc rib ed hi s cu rren t

be ne fit s an d i n f

o r med h im of in crea se s in hi s be ne fit s. Id

. at 39 0. In te rp ret in g

§ 40 4.5 10 a, th e Si xt h Ci rcu it reas on ed

, “ Alt ho ug h th e le tt ers ne ces sa ril y im pl y so m e

in te rp ret at io n of th e Act an d it s reg ul at io ns be cau se th ey ou tl in e [th e pl ai nt iff ’s]

en ti tl em en t to be ne fit s an d a be ne fit s in crea se

, th ey do n o t p u r p o rt to m ak e an y

ex pl ic it or sp eci fic in te rp ret at io n.” Id

. at 39 3. The co ur t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d, “ If th es e

do cu m en ts —o bv io us ly fo rm le tt ers —co ns ti tu te d of fic ia l in te rp ret at io n of th e st at ut e

or reg ul at io ns su ffi ci en t to tri gg er th e go od co ns ci en ce ex cep ti on to rep ay m en t,

vi rtu al ly ev ery So ci a l Secu rit y be ne fit reci pi en t wou ld be en ti tl ed to waiv er of

rep ay m en t as su m in g th ey rece iv ed be ne fit s of an y ki nd an d a le tt er de sc rib in g th os e

be ne fit s.” Id

. W e ag ree wit h th e Si xt h Ci rcu it ’s in te rp re t a t i on of § 40 4.5 10 a.

Co ns eq ue nt ly, Ro dysil l’s m ere rece ip t of di sa bi li ty be n e f i t s aft er no ti fy in g th e

Co m m is si on er of hi s wor k act iv it y do es no t sa ti sf y § 40 4.5 10 a. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce

3

Ro dysil l furt he r arg ue s th at he acce pt ed th e ov erp ay m en ts un de r § 40 4.5 10 a 3

b ecau se of co nf

li ct in g writ te n no ti ces th at he rece iv ed fro m th e Co m m is si on e r t h a t

in fo rm ed hi m of ov erp ay m en ts an d un de rp ay m en ts of di sa bi li ty be ne fit s. Howev er,

Ro dysil l di d no t m ak e th is arg um en t t o t h e d i s tri ct co ur t, an d as su ch

, th e di st ric t

-9

-th us su pp or ts th e Co m m is si on er’s co nc lu si on th at reco ve ry of th e ov erp ay m en t fro m

Ro dysil l i s n ot ag ai ns t eq ui ty and go od co ns ci en ce.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Bec au se th e Co m

m is si on er’s de ci si on to de ny waiv er of reco ve ry is su pp or te d

by sub st an ti al ev id en ce, we aff irm.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

co ur t di d no t co ns id er whe th er Ro dysil l acce pt ed th e ov erp ay m en ts pu rs ua nt to

§ 40 4.5 10 a be cau se of th es e co nf li ct in g no ti ces

. “ [I]t is well es ta bl is he d th at

, un le ss

a m an ife st in

jus ti ce wou ld res ul t, a cl ai m no t art ic ul at ed to th e di st ric t co ur t is su bjec t

to fo rfei t on ap pe al .” Rob er ts v. Apf el

, 22 2 F.3d 46 6, 47 0 (8t h Cir. 20 00 ). Bec au se

m an ife st in

jus ti ce wo ul d n ot ot he rwis e res ul t, we de cl in e to co ns id er th is arg um en t

m ad e fo r th e fi rs t t im e o n a pp eal

.

-1 0-